# [N] Norway | road infrastructure • Veier i Norge



## AmiDelf

*Highways in Norway*

Norway is big, its bigger than Denmark, Switzerland, Belgium, Netherlands etc but does it have highways? 










Norway might have about 200km with highways all tougether. A travel from Oslo to Bergen in bus is taking over 8 hours. This is about 550km distance. 15min or so is on highway, rest is 2 lane road with over 100 tunnels


----------



## Metropolitan

By highway, do you mean motorway ?

Well, Australia doesn't have much motorway either. I guess that it's not really significant to build motorways in an area which is too sparsely populated.


----------



## melbourne18

^^ Victoria has the most! Melbourne is linked to a number of regional towns by motorway but beyond that traffic levels are tiny.


----------



## yako

The same problem exists in Sweden; too large, too sparsely populated. I find it quite embarrassing that you still can't ride a continous motorway between Sweden's three major cities Stockholm, Gothenburg and Malmö, although work is underway of converting the last remains of "old" route E4 (between Stockholm and Helsingborg/Malmö) to motorway standard.










The E20 between Stockholm and Gothenburg is a whole other story though, more than half is still only two-lane highway.


----------



## AmiDelf

Ahh, well its pretty good from Uddevalla thru Gothenburg towards Malmö. Scandinavia got big place, but at the same time long distances between population.

From Oslo to Bergen it takes 8 hours, which is about 550km, and the same towards Trondheim 

The only real highways in Norway is arround Oslo. Bergen got one also, but it stops before you leave the city border ;P Stavanger have one from Sandnes towards Stavanger center. In Trondheim there is no A highway at all  E6 is going thru the city etc.


----------



## melbourne18

yako said:


> The same problem exists in Sweden; too large, too sparsely populated. I find it quite embarrassing that you still can't ride a continous motorway between Sweden's three major cities Stockholm, Gothenburg and Malmö, although work is underway of converting the last remains of "old" route E4 (between Stockholm and Helsingborg/Malmö) to motorway standard.
> 
> The E20 between Stockholm and Gothenburg is a whole other story though, more than half is still only two-lane highway.


IN Australia there isn't a full motorway between Melbourne and Brisbane either. However Melbourne is infact linked to surrounding major towns by motorway.

It's like this

M31 Melbourne-Albury 300km
M39 Seymour-Shepperton 100km (under development/construction)
M8 Melbourne-Ballarat 120km
M79 Melbourne-Bendigo 140km
M1 Geelong-Melbourne-Gippsland 200km


----------



## micro

AmiDelf said:


> The only real highways in Norway is arround Oslo.


Motorways you mean...


----------



## Justme

Norway may not have many great expressways, but from memory it has some very cool highways. One with an amazing tunnel complex through a mountain, and the other cut straight through several meters of ice in winter. Quite spectacular from memory, anyone with photos?


----------



## Justme

Some photos of the tunnel I was thinking of.


----------



## Mr. Fusion

Justme said:


>


BEAUTIFUL! :yes:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Are there enough autos in Norway to warrant constructing more highways?


----------



## ZZ-II

wow, big tunnel


----------



## cmoonflyer

Advanced technology !


----------



## Þróndeimr

@ Justme, Thats Lærdaltunnellen, the world longest tunnel, 24 530m long. I was in the tunnel two weeks ago, it is really impressive and spectacular. Here is a few pics i took.









Inside one of the three halls.


----------



## AmiDelf

Hello. I dont have a driver license, but I know that Norway is one of the richest countries out there, and still Norway got less than 150km with highways.

Think of it. Driving from Oslo to Bergen takes about 10 hours! Thats 98% 2 lane road with yellow stripes in the middle for the most and at some sections its even smaller with white stripes at the edges of asphalt.

Lets take route from Oslo to Bergen:
Oslo
¦
¦ Highway class A 
¦
Sandvika
¦
¦ 2 lane road, where 0.2% of it is classified as Highway B
¦
Voss
¦
¦ Highway from border of town to center of Bergen ;p
¦
Bergen


Does anyone have maps of Norways highways maybe?


----------



## AmiDelf

I made an illustration with this map 










So.. if Netherlands gets flooded or islands swallowed by the ocean. Norway got plenty of space


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Is the speed limit on motorways still 90km/h? That would be the lowest max.speed i've ever seen. 

And thanks for the invitation, but we have an excellent dike and dune system. They even came from New Orleans to check out our Delta-projects 
But Norway is a nice country, but quite expensive i heard. But the scenery compares that easily


----------



## Verso

^ The speed limit is now 100 km/h. 

I really don't understand why they have so few motorways, Finland for example has much more.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Well, the terrain is extremely mountainous, compared to flat Finland. maybe there is no need for them, because of low amounts of traffic. There are only a few million people in this country.


----------



## x-type

i think there is more then 150 km of motorway, but not too much. on the map that i own motorway system looks like on this picture. the thing that i hate in nordic countries (den, swe, nor) is that they don't have motorway numbers. fin has, but they are the same as state roads.


----------



## AmiDelf

That map is all wrong. Between Oslo and Lillehammer,.. the 4 lane highway is only upto Gardermoen airport, then further north its 2 lane highway and thats not real highway.

There are only 2 places in whole Norway where you can drive in 100km/h.


----------



## GuyFromMoss

AmiDelf you are wrong.. There are quite many places you can drive in 100 km/h in Norway.

E6 from Vinterbro to Solli, E6 from Oslo to Jessheim, E18 from Asker to Drammen, E18 from Drammen to Kopstad and also the highway connecting E6 and Oslo Airport have all speed limits of 100 km/h.

And the term "highway" is wronly used here. Highway means "riksveg". You guys are talking about Motorways/Expressways.


----------



## LtBk

100km/h is slow for me.


----------



## pilotos

> 100km/h is slow for me


Not that slow if u take in mind that 120km/h is the speed limit on like 80% of Europe's highways, except Germany where they use no speed limits for highways.

As for norways highways, i really had no idea that they actually have so little of them.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

LtBk said:


> 100km/h is slow for me.


Sadly enough, you'll see 100km/h on a growing amount of motorways in The Netherlands, outside urban areas. 

It is such a slow speed! But in Norways case, it's okay, so you can enjoy the scenery :lol:


----------



## NorthStar77

^the traffic is usually going in 110-120 though 

We have so bad motorways because all the money has been spent by stupid politicians wanting to build bridges and tunnels in the small places they come from(usually western or northern Norway)hno:


----------



## pilotos

> ^the traffic is usually going in 110-120 though


Well in Greece the speed limit on highways is 120(140 in some cases) but the traffic(Cars) is moving a lot higher(140-180).Thats a reason for us having a lot of deaths in our roads though.


----------



## Metsada

NorthStar77 said:


> ^the traffic is usually going in 110-120 though
> 
> We have so bad motorways because all the money has been spent by stupid politicians wanting to build bridges and tunnels in the small places they come from(usually western or northern Norway)hno:


Really? I would have thought that a country like Norway would know its priorities.


----------



## NorthStar77

Metsada said:


> Really? I would have thought that a country like Norway would know its priorities.


It's been bettet the last 10-15 years. Infrastructure-projects around Oslo have higher priority now(although most of them are financed by toll-roads). We've got a new motorway through much of Vestfold and Østfold (southwest and southeast of Oslo), and more is under construction. A 40 km motorway between Kristiansand and Grimstad in the south is also under construction. 

But the problem is that we are lagging behind, these motorways currently under construction would have been finished 30 years ago had the same area been in Sweden or Denmark.


----------



## BL

^^ i dont understand norway is one of the richest if not the richest country in the world and has no money for motorways.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

NorthStar77 said:


> ^the traffic is usually going in 110-120 though


Are you sure? I heard fines are ridiculous high.


----------



## Verso

pilotos said:


> Well in Greece the speed limit on highways is 120(140 in some cases) but the traffic(Cars) is moving a lot higher(140-180).Thats a reason for us having a lot of deaths in our roads though.


You may also drive at 140 km/h in Greece? Where would that be?


----------



## NorthStar77

Chris1491 said:


> Are you sure? I heard fines are ridiculous high.


Yes, but they usually don't bother with people driving 10-20km/h faster than the limit on the high standard motorways, only on the roads of poorer standards, where there are more accidents. 

I am sure, I've driven on the roads out of Oslo many times


----------



## pilotos

> You may also drive at 140 km/h in Greece? Where would that be?


IN pathe(παθε) motorway, there is a part of the road that speed limit is 140km/h its the part near thessaloniki which is 3 lanes each side.
I dont know if there is anywhere else though.The rule is 120km/h except if u see a sign that indicates a higher speed,can be lower also ofc .


----------



## Verso

^ I didn't know that, thanks. 

Btw, any pix of Norwegian motorways?


----------



## NorthStar77

The new motorway on E18 through Vestfold. 35km, 7km in tunnel, 2 km over bridges.









From the construction-phase:


















that thing over the road is a restaurant









All I had time for now


----------



## Verso

^ I like such restaurants. Btw, is there any Norwegian motorways' site or at least Norwegian roads' site?


----------



## Norsko

*Norwegian motorway signs*

This is how our motorway signage looks like:










And the blue one below is at the exit:


----------



## Norsko

Distance sign (the blue one on motorways of course):


----------



## Norsko

And that sign with a crest appears everytime you drive into a new county (blue no matter what kind of road you re at)...


----------



## Nicolás

E6 Near Trondheim, taken with my old camera:

























Oslo:


----------



## Oslo 5

*Norway, home of pork barreling*

The Norwegian Public Roads Administration (Statens vegvesen)http://www.vegvesen.no/servlet/Satellite?pagename=SVV%2FSVVforwardToSite&c=Publication&sitename=engelsk is responsible for planning, building and up keeping of national roads in Norway. The net pages describing the different road projects are only in Norwegian.http://www.vegvesen.no/servlet/Satellite?cid=1167903998425&pagename=vegvesen%2FPage%2FSVVsubSideInnholdMal&c=Page A resent study showed that Norway uses just as much on road construction as Sweden and Denmark, but the decision-making is quite different. In Norway almost all such decisions are some sort of pork barrelling (done in the parliament, versa Sweden and Denmark to a larger distinct trust upon the departments of transportation and/or road authorities).


----------



## Verso

Nice compilation of pix! What's the total length of Norwegian motorways (precisely, if possible)?


----------



## Oslo 5

*Norway has of today around 270km of motorways*

Norway has of today around 270km of motorways. It is very popular to complain about the state of Norwegian roads and the phase of new building, but there is little or none effort done to change the decision-making process which is the main reason of the way recourses are distributed to infrastructure investments.
Concerning the highways connecting Oslo and Bergen (E16/R7), will this be a rather silly place to start. Some parts are her of pore condition, but work/planning fore these parts are under way. But the need of a motorway all the way is greatly overestimated by some populists and ill-informed pressures groups. The road traffic between Oslo and Bergen are extremely low (under 2000 vehicles pr day). The rescores ere best spend were there in fact are severely problems. The R7 is not closed during winter (as some other even less trafficked mountain roads are) but due to the extreme weather condition over ‘Hardangervidda’ (1250m) , it might be closed for some days at the time during winter, but most often only at night (about 530 hours pr year).


----------



## Verso

^ Thanks! I knew it was more than 150 or 200 km.


----------



## AmiDelf

4 lane motorways is under 200km long. Norway got lots of B class motorways, which are 2 lanes only, but without crossings. Those cant be counted as real motorways though.


----------



## Oslo 5

*Pick a number; 180, 270 or 664*

I have seen the number 180km (2003), and I have seen 270km as of today, but neither are official numbers, of which I can’t find any. The larger number might or might not take in account all 4 lane expressways as Ring 3, Rv 4, Rv 163, Rv 190 and parts of E6 and E18 in Oslo of which none has full motorway standard. The lower number probably excludes these sections and of course those parts opened since ’03. But if you include all 2 lane expressways, the number are much higher (664km according to CIA World Fact book). Eider way, this is a way to low number, but this has more to do with pork barrelling than anything else.


----------



## GuyFromMoss

There are no "B class motorways" in Norway anymore. Motorway have to have four lanes to be called motorways in Norway.


----------



## Alex Von Königsberg

Here are some pictures of Norwegian carriageways. These are not mine, I just found them online.



















This road looks exactly like a US highway


----------



## ElviS77

The Norwegian motorway (4+ lanes with correct signposting) network is currently - as someone have already stated - approx. 270 kms. In addition to this, there are about 60 kms of reasonable quality limited-access mulitlane highways around some cities (Oslo, Bergen, Trondheim, Kristiansand). By 2010, the network will increase by about 90 kms (mainly through duelling of single-carriageway expressways). By 2015, the network will have increased by a further 200+ kms. That is if everything goes according to plan, which it rarely does up here...

In addition to this, a Swedish invention has become increasingly popular amongst the Norwegian road authorities: the narrow 4-lane road. Originally conceived as one way of widening Sweden's extensive 2-lane, 13-metre wide, road network to something resembling motorways (16 metres across with a centre guard rail), it has been introduced in Norway as a way of building motorways on the cheap.


----------



## Jeroen669

I heard the limit on Norwegian motorways are 90 or 100 km/h (and further 80 km/h). Is it 90 and 100 when signed, or 100 and 90 when signed? Btw, why don't you raise your speed limits? With such long distances in your country it takes quite long to travel with those low limits.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Norway is very mountainous. I think you may be happy to even reach 90km/h on many stretches. Although speed limits on motorways are low. They better raise them to 120km/h.


----------



## TohrAlkimista

But someone who wants to go from Oslo or Bergen to Nordkapp by car can do it? are there highways?


----------



## ChrisZwolle

There is a road to the Nordkapp yes. But don't expect motorway-like roads. The roads are very quiet, Norway is large and has only a population of 4.3 million. Especially north of Trondheim. 

But the usual road from Europe to the Nordkapp is through Sweden and Finland, because that's shorter.


----------



## Maxx☢Power

Chris1491 said:


> Norway is very mountainous. I think you may be happy to even reach 90km/h on many stretches. Although speed limits on motorways are low. They better raise them to 120km/h.


There's been talk about raising the speed limits on some new motorways. I think the reason motorways are still limited to 90 or 100 km/h is because people aren't used to real (extra-urban) motorways and so the normal speed limits have applied there as well. Norway only has two standard speed limits, for urban roads (80) and country roads (50), while most other countries also have one for motorways. I remember when I was a kid and we drove in Sweden how exciting it was to see speed limits with three digits. The roads of course had a much better quality (and the terrain was much easier to build in) to support these limits.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

http://nexus.fizyka.amu.edu.pl/digital/2007-07..Norwegia/

Very cool photo's done by some Polish guy, so all credits go to him.
(taken from the Polish subforum on SSC).


----------



## GuyFromMoss

It's a shame that there aren't more photos of Norwegian motorways online. Some of them is really top class!


----------



## Lankosher

GuyFromMoss said:


> It's a shame that there aren't more photos of Norwegian motorways online. Some of them is really top class!


I'll try to take some in October, though I'll fly there but certainly I'll have an access to the car 

P.S. I used to take a ferry from Moss to Horten, my family lives in Tonsberg


----------



## GuyFromMoss

WHAT? 

I currently live in Tønsberg. Weird!


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Yeah, you guys are _almost_ family


----------



## Lankosher

GuyFromMoss said:


> WHAT?
> 
> I currently live in Tønsberg. Weird!


I'll be in Tønsberg from the 4th until 8th of October


----------



## wyqtor

Wallaroo said:


> I like the Italian toll system best - works perfect! You get a ticket at the onramp, and pay for the amount of km you drove at the offramp.


I like it too, but from the signs in the pictures above I understand that in Norway they take a snapshot of your car number and then send you the bill by mail - did I understand correctly? If so, I find it very convenient and practical. And the best thing: no traffic jams at toll booths!

Out of curiousity, are foreign-numbered cars handled in the same way?


----------



## Norsko

wyqtor said:


> (...) Out of curiousity, are foreign-numbered cars handled in the same way?


That is the thought, and since this system has been in use for some time, I guess it works out quite as it is supposed to. I have read in the news about some German cars getting away without paying though, something about the German police having other priorities (would you belive it ? :shocked: )


----------



## x-type

wyqtor said:


> I like it too, but from the signs in the pictures above I understand that in Norway they take a snapshot of your car number and then send you the bill by mail - did I understand correctly? If so, I find it very convenient and practical. And the best thing: no traffic jams at toll booths!
> 
> Out of curiousity, are foreign-numbered cars handled in the same way?


but if thatßs so, why are there manual paying lanes? wouldnßt those be unneccessary?


----------



## Norsko

x-type said:


> but if thatßs so, why are there manual paying lanes? wouldnßt those be unneccessary?


The toll station with lanes for manual payment (photo 27 post 61) is situated on the E 18 motorway wich was constructed about ten years ago, the automatic toll station (photo 43 post 61) though, is just a couple of years old, built after this new payment system was developed and accommodated to the Norwegian Autopass system.


----------



## wyqtor

x-type said:


> but if thatßs so, why are there manual paying lanes? wouldnßt those be unneccessary?


I guess they didn't get to replace all of them just yet. Obviously they need quite high resolution cameras in order to clearly capture the number on the plate, cameras which weren't exactly available until recently. Probably they will soon replace the "manual" toll booths with the new camera ones. They need to be improved especially if they are around big cities like Oslo .

An interesting thing would be to make a computer program that "reads" car numbers, so the system would be fully automated, but that's not exactly an easy task, it would involve pattern recognition and advanced statistics.


----------



## Norsko

wyqtor said:


> I guess they didn't get to replace all of them just yet. Obviously they need quite high resolution cameras in order to clearly capture the number on the plate, cameras which weren't exactly available until recently. Probably they will soon replace the "manual" toll booths with the new camera ones. They need to be improved especially if they are around big cities like Oslo .
> 
> An interesting thing would be to make a computer program that "reads" car numbers, so the system would be fully automated, but that's not exactly an easy task, it would involve pattern recognition and advanced statistics.


You are very right! In fact that was a major argument for changing our car licenseplates (the fonts) one year ago, so many bills were mailed the wrong persons because such cameras was not always able to differ the digits 0, 3, 6, 8 and 9 when captured in 90 - 130 km/h.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

wyqtor said:


> An interesting thing would be to make a computer program that "reads" car numbers, so the system would be fully automated, but that's not exactly an easy task, it would involve pattern recognition and advanced statistics.


That exists for many years in the Netherlands. Fines from fixed speed traps and stretch controles are fully automated. I think it exists elswhere too.


----------



## wyqtor

Chriszwolle said:


> That exists for many years in the Netherlands. Fines from fixed speed traps and stretch controles are fully automated. I think it exists elswhere too.


Not here in Eastern Europe, that's for sure  ! I had no idea there were such advanced systems in the Netherlands, or anywhere else for that matter :nuts: . You guys would probably have the best motorway system in the world if it were also adapted to current capacity!


----------



## Norsko

Chriszwolle said:


> That exists for many years in the Netherlands. Fines from fixed speed traps and stretch controles are fully automated. I think it exists elswhere too.


We ve got those speed traps everyehere! They stand closer (at least almost  ) than light posts along our roads :weird:


----------



## NorthStar77

^ they can be a pain in the ass sometimes.

Some photos from the bus Kristiansand-Oslo, taken with my old crappy camera a couple of years ago. It's not so much highway-photos, as it is view from the highway-photos, wich may not be so interesting in this forum. 

Of the 330 km between Kristiansand and Oslo, only about 100 km is class A motorway(4 lanes), less than 100 km is class B motorway(2-3 lanes), and the rest is old roads in poor condition. In a few years, we'll have more than 50 km new class A motorway though.

Topdalsfjord in Kristiansand









Varodd-bridges in Kristiansand









Gas station at Lillesand, E18 on the left...









Driving over a brigde in Telemark









Lake Farris at Larvik









This cafe is now abandoned, as a new motorway is under construction that will replace this piece of E18.









Typical south-eastern Norway countryside



























Finally on the motorway!









Same cafe as shown by igorlan









Typical view









Same toll-station as shown by igorlan, only from the other side 









Drammen









Asker trainstation









The old IKEA before it got renovated









Sandvika, where I work









A special house









One of the countless office-buildings lying near E18 out of Oslo westwards. This is Tandberg HQ, I think.









Another one, this is Software Innovation


















At the toll-station in Oslo









At Skøyen









Mansions in western parts of Oslo, some used as embassies


















Coming out of Festningstunnellen(the fortress tunnel)









Oslo stock exhange









Oslo central station and Posthuset









On Bispelokket, a roundabout raised above E18


















I hope they were of some interest


----------



## ChrisZwolle

> It's not so much highway-photos, as it is view from the highway-photos, wich may not be so interesting in this forum.


That's okay. Not only the road is interesting, but also the setting!


----------



## wyqtor

^^ Some of us (i.e., me! ) are here on this forum as much for the actual motorways as for pictures of other places!

If you have more photos, do not hesitate to post them when you have time!  Norway is such a beautiful country and, the more pictures, the better!


----------



## x-type

i allways remember the book Hitchhikers Guide to Galaxy when there is said something about creationing the world and the part where creators got full freedom is - Norway! fantastic terrain!!! and cities looks really nice, i really like those pix!!!


----------



## NorthStar77

x-type said:


> i allways remember the book Hitchhikers Guide to Galaxy when there is said something about creationing the world and the part where creators got full freedom is - Norway! fantastic terrain!!! and cities looks really nice, i really like those pix!!!


Hehe, the terrain between Kristiansand and Oslo is described as boring compared to most other parts of Norway


----------



## Verso

Great pix again! I especially like those rough rocks by the road.



NorthStar77 said:


> Hehe, the terrain between Kristiansand and Oslo is described as boring compared to most other parts of Norway


Then it's high-time to take camera in your hands and get going.


----------



## NorthStar77

Okay then

Here are some photos from E16, between Oslo and Bergen, that I took last summer.

On Filefjell




































Down from Filefjell to Lærdal








































































Inside the world's longest tunnel(atleast for normal traffic), Lærdalstunnellen, 24.5km long.



























Torrential rain caused several earth-slides, and we had to wait for hours for the road to open again. For a while, there were rumours that some people were stuck inside some of the slides.




































A gravel road to the right of us here, had just been washed away...









Bonus pics from the same trip, Bergen and Besseggen


----------



## Verso

^^ Beautiful.  How many hours did it take you, considering you got stuck? And a couple of questions about the Lærdalstunnellen: what's the speed limit, and I've heard it lies on the main road between Oslo and Bergen (well, obviously you also used it), but to me it looks too north, isn't there another road more southerly and therefore shorter?


----------



## ChrisZwolle

There is also the E134 from Oslo to Haugesund, but you have to take a ferry.


----------



## Verso

Aha, I thought so; so I suppose the E134 was the main road Oslo-Bergen before the tunnel was built. But I see there's a road also over the tunnel, so I guess it was possible to get to Bergen without taking a ferry already before. Am I right?


----------



## Þróndeimr

NorthStar77 said:


> Yes, but they usually don't bother with people driving 10-20km/h faster than the limit on the high standard motorways, only on the roads of poorer standards, where there are more accidents.
> 
> I am sure, I've driven on the roads out of Oslo many times


Yeah, traffic easilly go up to 100km/h-120km/h on the highways with speed limit 90km/h. But the police has taken many recently even on these roads (i think its ridicilous, more understandable in 60km/h and less).

A few/loads pics i have taken from different highways and roads in Norway, mostly in Trøndelag, or around Trondheim.

New E6 south of Trondheim.


































































































































































Lærdalstunnellen, the world longest tunnel.






















































Maybe not that many highway pics!


----------



## AmiDelf

You can say what you want. But I found my sources on Wikipedia. So whatever you think and I think. We have different opinions about this. I have been in English speaking countries also. 

Highway is as much as a motorway. So dont tell me any fuzz about whats right or wrong here ;p


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

*Norwegian highway standards*

^^ I am just trying to help you out so people actually can understand what you are writing. Not that I consider wikipedia as an authority (neither should you, keep to dictionaries and real encyclopedias), but wikipedia presents these roads as examples of highways:
















Now, are these motorways? Of course, all motorways are highways, but far from all highways are motorways.

Edit: Now I understand what you mean. You are thinking about the motorway sign. Well, it says that the sign is an International highway sign for motorway, just like this







is an international highway sign for bumpy road and this







is an international highway sign for cattle on the road. You get it?

To confuse you guys even more: Here are the official profiles as of 2007 to be applied in new projects on the main (i.e. interregional) highways in Norway:








S1: ADT< 4 000, 60 km/h








(S1: 4 000 < ADT 12 000, 60 km/h) & (S2: ADT < 4 000, 80 km/h) & (S3: ADT < 4 000, 90 km/h)








S4: 4 000 < ADT < 8 000, 80 km/h, expressway (motortrafikkvei)








S5: 8 000 < ADT < 12 000, 90 km/h, expressway (motortrafikkvei)








Passing lane for S5








Passing lanes in both directions for S5








S6: ADT > 12 000, 60 km/h








S7: ADT > 12 000, 80 km/h, motorway








S8: 12 000< ADT < 20 000, 100 km/h, motorway








S8: ADT > 20 000 , 100 km/h, motorway (there are talks about increasing the speed limit to 110 km/h for these roads)

ADT numbers are to be estimated 30 years ahead of time (i.e. 30 years life time is used), but the prognoses they are using have been notorious in the past in underestimating the traffic growth, and are more an expression of political wishful thinking than reality. For high traffic roads (i.e. in Oslo, Stavanger, Bergen and Trondheim) more than 4 lanes are of course considered. The lower classes, i.e. S1, S6 and S7 are to be used only in urban areas or other places where there may be environmental or other restrictions. There are of course also many other differences between the standards, but there is no point in going into detail here...

The problem is, that a very small percentage of the current Norwegian roads keep to this standard, and with the current funding, it will take 50 years to get there.


----------



## Maxx☢Power

54°26′S 3°24′E is right, a highway is just any road that's the main road between two destinations. It can be a normal, two-lane road or it can be a full-on motorway with restricted access and grade-separated intersections.

Not that it matters, the roads and most other transport infrastructure in Norway are still shit.


----------



## Verso

54°26′S 3°24′E;16246079 said:


> all motorways are highways


I even think it's possible to say that not ALL motorways are highways, if there's a motorway that really isn't important. Now, you probably wonder why they would build a motorway, if it's not important. Well, I don't have a clue, but it may happen (and I'm sure there's plenty of examples like this in the world) that a motorway just became unimportant after a while, or maybe because of some unusual event.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

I don't think there are a lot of completely useless motorways. However i'm not sure why the hell they build the A571 and A573 near Bad Neuenahr in Germany. The roads don't even connect with it's parent number (A5 or A57).


----------



## Verso

^ I certainly wouldn't call these two 'highways'.  About that street in SF: I think I've already seen it, but probably just once, and I didn't know where to put it.


----------



## TheCat

I don't think any of the posters have been 100% right about the word "highway". The official definition is indeed any road. However, the common usage of the word differs significantly from place to place. In the US and Canada, the words "freeway" and "highway" are often used to refer to motorways. In Toronto, if people say they will "take the highway", it means that they will take the motorway, even though we also have a network of provincial highways, most of which are not motorways. We also have some expressways in the city that function as streets but have names such as "Highway 7". But still, if one uses the word "highway" without specifying a specific highway number, the meaning is "motorway" (in Toronto, it usually means a 400-series highway). The word "motorway" is actually not used at all in North America, and I never heard it used here, nor have I ever used it in speech, except for this forum.


----------



## Alex Von Königsberg

Even in different US states people refer to highways/freeways differently. In California, almost everyone refers to motorways as "freeways", but I have heard that in the East, they almost exclusively use word "highway" for both ordinary highways and motorways. Even in Washington, they sometimes call I-90 a highway. In British Columbia, locals told me to take "Highway 1" when they meant Trans-Canada Highway which is in fact a motorway in Vancouver Metro area.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

I usually refer to "motorways" as in freeway, autopista, autobahn, expressway etc. So roads or highways with motorway-standards. In US topics, i'd rather use the word Freeway or expressway, since the word "motorway" isn't used in the United States. 

I refer to other roads as "highway" or just "road".


----------



## x-type

i use motorway (i prefer british english) for autobahn.
highway is for me more important road, something like some kind of arteria, which connects some larger distances. it is not neccesserly a motorway (autobahn).


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

TheCat said:


> I don't think any of the posters have been 100% right about the word "highway". The official definition is indeed any road. However, the common usage of the word differs significantly from place to place. In the US and Canada, the words "freeway" and "highway" are often used to refer to motorways. In Toronto, if people say they will "take the highway", it means that they will take the motorway, even though we also have a network of provincial highways, most of which are not motorways. We also have some expressways in the city that function as streets but have names such as "Highway 7". But still, if one uses the word "highway" without specifying a specific highway number, the meaning is "motorway" (in Toronto, it usually means a 400-series highway). The word "motorway" is actually not used at all in North America, and I never heard it used here, nor have I ever used it in speech, except for this forum.


Well, it's no news that people may be a bit sloppy when they talk. It doesn't make it right though. I think the cause of much of the confusion regarding this, is that an important part of the US highway network, the interstate highways, per definition are freeways. But still the majority (federal, state and county highways) are generally not freeways. BTW, can you call a toll road a freeway? (The places I have lived in the US have had no toll roads). After all, they are not free, and these projects in the US are usually for some reason called either parkways (although they are no good neither for use as a park or parking) or the even more mysterious turnpike. Well, to avoid any confusion I will stick to motorway regarding Norway at least...


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

*A plan, an ambition, and a dreamer*

This is the 30 year (!) plan of the Norwegian high way authorities regarding the motorway network:








Red roads will be at least 22 m, whereas yellow will be 19 m. However, as I said, it will take 50 years to get there with the current funding (including upgrade of the gray roads to one of those standards

Currently, the sorry state of Norwegian highways is this:








Roads indicated in red are interregional highways ("stamveger") with less than 7 m width! 








This map shows points or stretches with less than 6 m width!

There are of course some people that push for a little bit more than the road authorities. A group called bilaksjonen and some people behind the site bedreveier.no are pushing for this motorway network in Norway:







.
They call it "The double Y", and is roughly 2000 km long. So far the only supportive party however is the rightwing "Fremskrittspartiet", and unfortunately the rest of their policies are shit :bash:

The problem in Norway is that investment in roads are not seen as an investment, but an expense. I think Norway should now really focus on their transport infrastructure, both roads and railway, so that we can save more lives and be less dependent on air transport. Hardly any nation flies more than Norway today.

Well that was the plan and an ambition. What about the dreamer? Well, I found this on the internet:








Clearly, this is a wet dream of any Norwegian freeway fantast! The coastal road Stavanger-Bergen-Trondheim will be very demanding to build (currently I believe there are 7 ferry crossings on this road), but would probably result in a quite spectacular road. Local politicians are by the way already pushing to remove at least three of these ferries, but I can come back to that later. Personally, I don't think I would have prioritized quite like that guy. For instance, one of the most important interregional roads in Norway today, the Rv 3 which is the road the trucks use between Oslo and Trondheim and beyond, is with all the other freeways in place still a normal two-lane road!


----------



## AmiDelf

This image is saying stamveg and not motorvei. I think your out in the woods talking about whats wrong or not. People usually use the words that they feel is right. There might be grammar talks everywhere.. but almost no one uses them. 

People understands each others and thats whats most important. To try to learn adults how to write or talk is just wrong. People talks in different ways. Lech Walensa in Poland is critisized for having bad Polish, but the others who dosent care about that, but rather what he have done for eastern Europe etc. It dosent matter.

Let people learn by themself.


----------



## Maxx☢Power

It's not criticism, it's just pointing out when someone says banana when they actually mean pumpkin. There are no doubts about the meanings of highway and motorway.

Back on topic; that 30 year plan is not very ambitious. Three of the ten most-trafficked air routes in Europe is in little Norway; I wonder why? It's not because people are so fond of flying, it's because it's the only alternative. In this regard Norway is like a little piece of America in Europe, only the motorways are even worse. Sane politicians are making a big mistake letting those populistic loons in FrP taking advantage of the situation.


----------



## Verso

Does anyone know the AADT (annual average daily traffic) of the (only?) border crossing with Russia? Of course, an AADT map of the whole Norway would be even better.


----------



## TheCat

54°26′S 3°24′E;16262733 said:


> Well, it's no news that people may be a bit sloppy when they talk. It doesn't make it right though. I think the cause of much of the confusion regarding this, is that an important part of the US highway network, the interstate highways, per definition are freeways. But still the majority (federal, state and county highways) are generally not freeways. BTW, can you call a toll road a freeway? (The places I have lived in the US have had no toll roads). After all, they are not free, and these projects in the US are usually for some reason called either parkways (although they are no good neither for use as a park or parking) or the even more mysterious turnpike. Well, to avoid any confusion I will stick to motorway regarding Norway at least...


It doesn't really have much to do with sloppiness. The exact definitions of the words "highway" and "road" are really only important in legal contexts, i.e. only in official documentation. It is simply a fact that at least here in Toronto, the word "highway" is most commonly used to refer to a motorway.

Regarding "freeways", it is a quite common misconception, but even if you look at the strictly official definition, a freeway does not have to be free of tolls. A freeway, by definition, is a limited-access, divided road. The word "free" in this context refers to something like "free of intersections". In fact, one website (gbcnet.com) has this interesting excerpt: "The "free" in freeway instead refers to a legislative definition passed by the California Legislature in 1939 which provided for a highway that would be free of encroaching properties and which provided for control of access." In fact, this is probably why, as Alex von Konigsberg has mentioned, "freeway" is used extensively in California, but not necessarily in other states.

But nonetheless, I agree, this has nothing to do with this thread, so I am not going to continue .


----------



## wyqtor

54°26′S 3°24′E;16263296 said:


> This is the 30 year (!) plan of the Norwegian high way authorities regarding the motorway network:


Are they kidding? There's hardly any change! I hope this "plan" will change very soon.


----------



## Jeroen669

I can imagine there's no need for a complete network of 4-lane motorways in Norway. But improving 2-lane highways to motorroads (or something like that) with few or no grade intersections, fewer curves and a higher speed limit (like in Germany or even on some stretches in Holland where you're allowed to drive 100km/h) has to possible, I guess.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

AmiDelf said:


> This image is saying stamveg and not motorvei. I think your out in the woods talking about whats wrong or not. People usually use the words that they feel is right. There might be grammar talks everywhere.. but almost no one uses them.


You are right. The map is showing the proposed standards for the "stamveg"s in Norway. "Stamveg" is a bureaucratic term used for a road that connects one region of Norway to the other, and the map shows them all. However, if you look at the profiles above, a 4-lane stamveg shall also be a motorway according to the standards. This is the case for the roads drawn in yellow and red.

My point was not to correct the grammar, but that people who are not familiar to Norway should understand what you write, which should also be in your interest. (Please also correct me if I my message could be misunderstood). The way you put it it sounded like there was almost no roads outside the Oslo-area. I could perhaps have used the "private messages" system instead, though, and thus avoided all the fuss, but I am new, so I wasn't familiar with this system.
[/QUOTE]



MaxxPower said:


> Back on topic; that 30 year plan is not very ambitious.


Especially considering:
1. Only two regions are connected with 4-lane roads, Eastern Norway and the small southern Norway (Sørlandet).
2. There was an almost identical plan in the 1960s, that was to be implented within 1980. Now, almost 50 years later the horizont for this is still 30 years ahead...
3. Actually, during the occupation, the Germans laid out a detailed plan for a real Autobahn in 1942 between Oslo and Trondheim going through Østerdalen. This road should serve the "Neu Drontheim" project I guess, where the Germans planned to establish a new city of 350 000 inhabitants right outside the old city to support their extensive navy bases in the Trondheim fjord. Luckily, "Neu Drontheim" never materialized, but it would be great to have the road, though....


Verso said:


> Does anyone know the AADT (annual average daily traffic) of the (only?) border crossing with Russia? Of course, an AADT map of the whole Norway would be even better.


Check http://svvgw.vegvesen.no/http://svvnvdbappp.vegvesen.no:7778/webinnsyn/anon/index. It's all in Norwegian, but you get the data you need by ticking off "Trafikkmengde" in the "Trafikkdata" menu at the left. The particular road you are asking about looks like it still has AADT<500 though, although I believe it has increased a lot from what it used to be (i.e. nil). Actually, Kirkenes is trying to position itself as a harbor that could service the planned offshore oil development on the Russian side. Their work would be greatly eased, however, if the Russian railway 40-50 km away could be extended to the Norwegian port.

Edit: You need to zoom in quite a bit to get access to the trafic data.


TheCat said:


> It is simply a fact that at least here in Toronto, the word "highway" is most commonly used to refer to a motorway.


That would probably not be the case though, if you lived in an area far from the closest freeway (which I have done in the US).


> Regarding "freeways", it is a quite common misconception, but even if you look at the strictly official definition, a freeway does not have to be free of tolls. A freeway, by definition, is a limited-access, divided road. The word "free" in this context refers to something like "free of intersections". In fact, one website (gbcnet.com) has this interesting excerpt: "The "free" in freeway instead refers to a legislative definition passed by the California Legislature in 1939 which provided for a highway that would be free of encroaching properties and which provided for control of access."


I suspected this was the case, so I guess it's only due to fear of ridicule that politicians never dear to name new toll roads as freeways, but rather parkways, turnpikes, distributor, and thruways etc.


wyqtor said:


> Are they kidding? There's hardly any change! I hope this "plan" will change very soon.


I hope so too, but the plan would still probably double the length of motorways in Norway, in about 50 years..... 


Jeroen669 said:


> I can imagine there's no need for a complete network of 4-lane motorways in Norway. But improving 2-lane highways to motorroads (or something like that) with few or no grade intersections, fewer curves and a higher speed limit (like in Germany or even on some stretches in Holland where you're allowed to drive 100km/h) has to possible, I guess.


Actually, economists have calculated that a (4-lane) motorway network connecting the population centers in the southern half of Norway would save 62 billion NOK (8.2 billion Euros or 11.5 billion USD) a year, and many lives. The ballpark figure of much it would cost to build the 2000 km double-y-network that would connect 90 % of the population of southern Norway is 100 billion NOK. Even is this estimate, which is based on costs of recent Swedish motorways ++, is off by a factor of two, this would be a very good investment. To illustrate what these figures means in real terms for Norway:

*62 billion NOK is twice the Norwegian defense budget
*The cost of a recent offshore development finnished this year (Ormen Lange) was 66 billion NOK. There are many of these...
*The projected SURPLUS of the Norwegian national budget of 2007 is 375 billion NOK
*At the end of next year, the Norwegian government will have roughly 2 500 billion NOK invested in funds abroad.

New research has also shown that as new roads in the cities usually mean larger emission due to increased traffic, this is not true for interregional roads. Traveling frequency seems relatively unaffected by road standard. Thus, enhanced interregional roads will greatly reduce emissions because fuel efficiency is very low in the often clogged and almost always winding Norwegian roads.

I however also support the development of a high speed train network in Norway, which the current government seems to support, since this will greatly reduce our dependence on air-travel on point-to-point travel between the cities, as discussed by MaxxPower above. The estimated cost of such a network is 200-300 billion NOK for southern Norway. However, these trains can only make a few stops, and cannot serve the whole country, a family on their trip to their cabin, or, most importan, the truck traffic.

I realize that the biggest hurdle is not money, but getting enough hands to build the infrastructure. However, I believe this is a matter of priority, and the use of foreign construction companies would probably ease the inflationary pressure. In any case the projections are that there will be even less hands in the future, so there won't come a "better" time.


----------



## Maxx☢Power

54°26′S 3°24′E;16296121 said:


> 3. Actually, during the occupation, the Germans laid out a detailed plan for a real Autobahn in 1942 between Oslo and Trondheim going through Østerdalen. This road should serve the "Neu Drontheim" project I guess


Ein Neu-Drontheim für Neuropa. I guess they should've stayed on a bit longer to build some proper roads..


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

One problem with this norm is that it does not differ between cars and trucks. This of course, discriminate the regional transit routes which is quite important for the economy vs urban roads that has mostly private cars whose drivers and passengers might as well use some other form for transport.

However, no need to worry, using the official traffic prognoses, the current funding will only get the Norwegian roads up to the official norm in 50 years time. Unfortunately, real growth has typicallly been 2 percent higher than the prognosis in the past, so in reality, Norwegian roads will never get there with the current funding.


----------



## GuyFromMoss

But the situation could be worse, this year quite a long strech of motorway will open in Østfold, and the motorway trough Drammen will be ready.Next year, 40 kms of motorway will open from Kristiansand to Grimstad, and the long motorway tunnel at Vinterbro (close to Oslo) will open.


----------



## Ingenioren

The worst things about norwegian roads, is that they're unreliable(have to close in bad weather, falling rocks etc.), unsafe(to many turns, to narrow and not enough centre-guardrail), and main routes trough towns and cities(even the new E6 Oslo - Trondheim is recently planned trough Oppdal centre) - The local authorities want them trough because of tourism. It's not true that planners don't pay attention to the truck-routes, they get the numbers with heavy vehicles seperatly - i know, i do the counting =P But there's a lot of road-planning i don't yet understand.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

^^ How do you guys count? I am also conducting traffic counts, but with mobile counters, not the ones which are made in the pavement.


----------



## Ingenioren

The old way, using a paper and pen - only for intersections tough because it's the cheapest way to do these counts.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Alright, visual countings. We do those occasionally. 

I use these:


----------



## ChrisZwolle

^^ This one is actually placed in a way, i'd never do. Cars can stand on the hoses, and the counts can be interrupted, making the counts unreliable.


----------



## ElviS77

*The Norwegian Mother Road, the E6*

Most of the users of this forum will probably never go to Norway, but some might. Since the quality of even main roads up here is questionable, to say the least, here's a somewhat subjective guide of what you can expect now and in the forseeable future. The obvious starting point is the 2000+ kms of "mother road", the E6.

The Norwegian stretch of the E6 runs through the entire country, thus covering a wide variety of landscapes and road standards. County by county, it goes something like this:

Østfold:

Crossing the border from Sweden, you enter Østfold county, through which the E6 will be completed as a proper 4-lane motorway by the end of this year. Currently, approx 25 kms remain. Speed limit: Eventually 100 kph the entire way.
Nature-wise, Østfold is relatively flat and perhaps a bit boring, at least by Norwegian standards.

Akershus/Oslo/Akershus

To the north of Østfold, the E6 runs through Akershus, Oslo and then Akershus again. From the Østfold border to the Oslo border, the entire road is a motorway apart from a 7-km stretch just south of Oslo. The road and tunnel here is due to be completed in 2009. 
Through the southern outskirts of Oslo, there is a serious jam problem. The road is an older, 2x2-lane expressway. There are plans to make it a 2x3 and reroute it through a new tunnel, but this is at least 10-15 years in the future.
To the north, the situation is slightly better: The road is a motorway, mainly 2x3 (even 2x4 including a bus lane in places). 
Entering Akershus again. The first 40 kms is a proper 2x2 motorway, then things turn sour: the remaining bit of the E6 through Akershus is a 2- or 3-lane expressway without a centre guardrail or barrier. Work on dualling the road has begun, but even the first 10-km stretch will not be completed until 2009, and the rest is not due to be completed until 2012-15. Speed limits vary, 80-100 kph, lower through construction zones, obviously.
Akershus is also quite boring, with fields, farms, villages and low hills.

Hedmark

Much the same as Akershus, the entire stretch (approx 75 kms) is 2-/3-lane expressway. Speed limit: 80 kph. Dualling is planned or in construction, the first 10-km bit will open in 2010, the rest from 2012-2020 (or perhaps even beyond). 
Hedmark is slightly more exciting, the road runs partly along Norway’s largest lake Mjøsa, partly through forests and hills and partly across fields.

Oppland

The road quality varies a lot, the first 40-50 kms is a 2-/3-lane expressway, the next 50 kms a reasonable quality 2-lane highway, bypassing villages and hamlets. The remainder of the road through Gudbrandsdalen (some 100 kms) is not so reasonable: the 2-lane highway runs through most villages, it is quite curvy in places and the climb up to the Dovre plateau is quite steep. Across the plateau, however, the road is dead straight, with a 90 kph speed limit. Elsewhere, 50-80 kph.
As for plans, there are plenty: The southernmost part, along Mjøsa up to Lillehammer, will eventually be dualled, but that won’t happen for at least 15 years. The road through Gudbrandsdalen is planned as a 2+1 expressway, with a central barrier. Construction may start in a couple of years. 
Oppland has the first bit of truly exciting nature, the Dovre plateau, but also Mjøsa and parts of Gudbrandsdalen (meaning Gudbrand’s valley) is interesting.

Sør-Trøndelag

Both road quality and nature differ considerably over the 150+ kms through the southern Trøndelag county. Beginning on the Dovre plateau, the road is quite good (stretches with a 90 kph limit) almost down to Oppdal. But just south of that village, things get worse. From there to the southern outskirts of Trondheim, the road is a mix of decent highway, villages and towns, curvy stretches along valleys and rivers and a short 3-/4-lane expressway just south of Trondheim. Speed limits, 50-90 kph.
There are plans for improvement, but they’re anything but spectacular and way into the future. The final 10 kms into Trondheim will be widened into a proper motorway in the next 5-10 years. Around Trondheim, the road is a pretty decent 4-lane expressway, and to the north (actually east…), the road is a 2-/3-lane expressway for 30 kms, partly with a central barrier. In the long run, this might become a motorway.
The nature is varied, mountains, wild valleys, forests, hills, agricultural landscapes and even the Trondheimsfjord.

Nord-Trøndelag

No uniform standard here either. The southernmost 75 kms has a considerable amount of 2-lane expressway, but it’s mixed with villages and poorer quality 2-lane road. North of Steinkjer, the road is somewhat more uniform, a 2-lane highway. Mainly, it’s a quite good 70s or 80s road, around Grong there is even a proper 90 kph stretch built in the 90s. North of there, the road narrows, with plenty of curves and even a single-lane bridge, but there are also bits of better 80s/90s road. Speed limits vary from 50 to 90 kph.
Steinkjer deserves a few comments. The new road through the former is nothing short of a scandal: south of the town, the road is a narrow-profile 2+2 expressway. North of the town, it’s a 1+1 with a central concrete barrier. Through the town, however, you’ve got two narrow lanes, four or five roundabouts, plenty of local traffic. Nothing atypical about that, perhaps, only that the road is brand new…
Plans include a 4-lane stretch around Stjørdal (with roundabout intersections, however), some shorter new stretches. In a 20-year perspective, we might see more of a narrow profile 4-laner through the southern part, and longer improved stretches further north.
Nature includes hilly landscapes, the Trondheimsfjord, fields, forests and river valleys.

Nordland

Norway’s longest and second-largest county is truly varied, roadwise as well as naturewise. Close to the border with Nord-Trøndelag you find some of the worst stretches of the entire E6; narrow (single lane in places), plenty of tight curves, poor pavement, 60-70 kph speed limit… The stretch into Mosjøen was improved in the 80s, but the 50 kms north of Mosjøen are quite bad. Then, there is a new 8-km tunnel, and the road from Korgen to Mo is ok to quite good. Further north, the story is bad until you get up at Saltfjellet mountain plateau, where the road is spectacular in most ways imaginable. The descent on the other side is also narrow, but the road down in the valley is really good all the way to Rognan. The next 200 kms (to Narvik), is basically the same roadwise: An ok 2-lane road, quite a few (rather narrow) tunnels, steep in places, curvy in places. The stretch also includes the only ferry on the E6. Narvik to the border with Troms is much the same story: 2 lanes, improved in places. Speed limits obviously vary, from 50 to 90 kph, but there are in fact a few longish 90 kph stretches.
Improvements are planned in several places: A new bridge north of Narvik, new road through the city centre, tunnels to replace the worst hill just south of the ferry, improvements of all non-2-lane stretches are all to become a reality in a decade or so.
Where to begin in terms of the nature..? Mountain plateaus and ranges, glaciers, fjords, wild rivers, valleys, forests… In short, a truly spectacular drive.

Troms/Finnmark

It’s been a while since I drove through Norway’s two northernmost counties, but not all that much has happened since the early 90s. The road quality varies considerably, but there is quite a bit of 90 kph on the straight roads along fjords, across mountain plateaus and in the valleys. There are narrow and curvy places, however, even though some of them have been improved. The road through both countries is quite quiet (apart from the bit through Alta), and thus, it runs through most tiny hamlets, villages and towns. However, these are few and far between, so a reasonable travel speed is very much possible. Limits from 50 to 90, much more of the latter.
Some plans exist, one of the more spectacular is the proposed improvement of the current rv 98 between Lakselv and Tana and make it into the E6. It would make sense, since it’s about 50 kms shorter, but it requires a new road across a couple of mountain passes. Improvements are currently going on outside Alta, and a few other places will also see construction works the next decade. 
The nature is still spectacular, fjords and mountains in particular, plus the world’s northernmost forest!


----------



## ElviS77

*E18*

I’ll see if I can find more pix, but for now, I’m focusing on this guide. I’ve driven most Norwegian main roads, and I’ll see if I can make a guide to the E39, E16, E134, E136, E14, E10, E8, rv 2, 3, 5, 7 and 15. If anyone else would like to make other contributions or additions to my guides, please feel free. 

However, my second guide concerns the second-most important road in Norway, the E18.

Østfold

Whereas the E6 enters Norway from the south, Gothenburg, Malmö, Copenhagen and – obviously – Continental Europe, E18 is the main link from the east – Stockholm. It is certainly not as important as the E6, but still, quite a busy road. At the border, the road is a decent 2-lane road for about 10 kms. The next 25 are better, a 90s 10-metre 2-laner. Then, there’s a short break onto the old, poor quality road. Then, about 15 kms of brand new motorway until you end up on an older 2-lane road through towns and villages to the border with Akershus. Speed limits 50-100 kph.
Construction works going on as we speak. The entire western part to the Akershus border will eventually be motorway, the remainder 2-lane expressway, but probably not finished until beyond 2015.
The nature isn’t that spectacular, fields, forests, some lakes and hills.

Akershus/Oslo/Akershus

The first 10 kms is an overloaded, decent 2-lane stretch. The next 5 is an overloaded, 2+1 expressway without a central divider, then entering Oslo on a 4-km stretch of OLD motorway which turns to an overloaded regular road along the fjord about 8 kms from the city centre. Then, 4, 6 or 8 lanes through/under the city centre, partly with motorway signposting. Then, an older 4-6-lane (partly plus bus lanes) road all the way to Sandvika where the road turns 2x3, later 2x2 motorway to the Buskerud border. Limits: 50-90 kph.
Plans and construction… Well… To start where I ended above: the largest project in Norwegian history, a new western approach to Oslo from Sandvika: A brand new 2x3 motorway will replace the old expressway, due for opening around 2015. Also, widening to 2x3 towards Asker, possibly a new tunnel underneath Asker to replace the ugly 70s bridge. Currently, an immersed 2x3 tunnel is constructed across the eastern harbour to take traffic under instead of through the city. This will open in 2010. The 2-lane road along the fjord may eventually be replaced by a 6-km 2x2 tunnel, but the politicians insist 2 lanes should be reserved for buses. Quite insane, particularly since the traffic load approaches an AADT of 30,000… 2 lanes of the old motorway south of the proposed tunnel will also be made into bus lanes (AADT 25,000+...), and the 2+1 (AADT 20,000+) will not be widened. The reason for all this is that the politicians have decided that traffic from the south and east should use the E6 from the E18/E6 junction and not the E18… The 10 kms of “overloaded, decent 2-lane” road to the east of this will eventually be replaced by a motorway, but not until years after the Østfold motorway is finished…
Nature? Not much of it, since most of the road crosses the most densely populated area of Norway. But the fjord is nice.

Buskerud

Actually, a fully fledged E18 motorway county come autumn. Then, the “missing link” – 2 kms of 2-lane expressway south of Drammen – will be dualled. Speed limits from 80 (the bridge over Drammen) to 100 (the rest) apart for the 50-70 through the construction site. 
Nature: Quite ok, albeit not all that exciting, mainly fields, some forest plus a hint of fjord.

Vestfold

Northern 40+ kms (to Tønsberg exit) is a modern 2x2 motorway, the next 25 kms a 2- or 2+1-expressway, partly with a central concrete barrier. Then, 10 kms of accident-infested 2-lane highway, followed by another 10 of 70s 2-lane expressway. The final stretch to the border with Telemark is horrible, plenty of curves and traffic... Limits: 60-100 kph.
Plans: The entire stretch will be made motorway by 2012-15, current construction is the replacement of the “10 kms of accident-infested 2-lane highway”. Finished by 2009.
Nature: Mainly fields, some forests and hills.

Telemark

Begins with a fairly old 2-lane expressway which becomes a slightly newer 2- or 2+1-expressway for about 25 kms. Then, a decent 2-laner for 20 kms, eventually leaving Telemark the same way it entered – as 70s 2-lane expressway. 60-80 kph.
Eventually, the entire stretch is supposed to become a motorway, but that’ll probably take 20+ years. However, the first 4-lane stretch, to replace the 20 km non-expressway stretch, might come to be in less than a decade.
Telemark’s nature is more exciting, even out by the coast. You’ll get hills, fjords with spectacular views from the bridges crossing them plus a bit of fields and forest.

Aust-Agder

You’ll start on the abovementioned 70s expressway, then onto a modern 2+1 expressway with a central barrier. After about 25 kms, you’ll enter 30 kms of questionable 2-lane highway. Some stretches have been modernised, but mainly rather narrow and curvy and most certainly not good enough. Then, from Arendal to Grimstad, there is a 2-/2+1-expressway built in the 80s and 90s. The final 40 kms to the Vest-Agder border is truly crappy, but is replaced by a new motorway currently under construction in 2009. Speed limits vary from 50 to 90 kph.
Eventually, also Aust-Agder will see only motorway, but not for another 20 years. The next likely stretch to be improved is north of Arendal.
The southern coast of Norway is really nice, and even the inland stretches of the E18 have some nice views.

Vest-Agder

The final 10 kms of E18 – into Kristiansand – is or will be shortly 4-lane expressway or motorway. Speed limit 60-80 kph.
Plans: A new Varodd bridge. Currently, southbound traffic use a new bridge, northbound use the old 50s suspension bridge. This will eventually be replaced.
Nature, still nice.


----------



## Ingenioren

Great guides, Elvis! To bad they have to replace the varoddbridge as the old one looks really impressing!


----------



## Jeroen669

Interesting information. Thanks for sharing.


----------



## ElviS77

Ingenioren said:


> Great guides, Elvis! To bad they have to replace the varoddbridge as the old one looks really impressing!


Thanks! There's more to come, including pictures. I can't seem to get them pasted, though...


----------



## ElviS77

Jeroen669 said:


> Interesting information. Thanks for sharing.


Thank you, the next road guide is going to be the E39 - about 1000 kms of about everything a motorist can imagine...


----------



## Ingenioren

Yes, show the horror! Keep up the good work=)


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

Ingenioren said:


> It's not true that planners don't pay attention to the truck-routes, they get the numbers with heavy vehicles seperatly - i know, i do the counting =P But there's a lot of road-planning i don't yet understand.


I know they count the trucks seperately (at least sometimes), but when calculating the total AADT, which eventually decides which road could be built, a Fiant Punta count just as much as the largest truck monsters...


ElviS77 said:


> Thanks! There's more to come, including pictures. I can't seem to get them pasted, though...


Thanks for the great work. If you want to include pictures, you need to host them somewhere else. I have used imageshack.us a couple of times to host pictures anonymously, but I see other people are using other sites.


----------



## plcmat

Chriszwolle said:


> ^^ This one is actually placed in a way, i'd never do. Cars can stand on the hoses, and the counts can be interrupted, making the counts unreliable.


True, but 100% accuracy isn't really important, is it?


----------



## ChrisZwolle

^^ Well, it is important if you conduct such a survey to make noise-level models. Those can be used in juridical issues. If you have always cars standing on the hoses (usually with a roundabout), the accuracy can be very low. 

It works like this:
When a car drive over a hose, a little air pulse will go towards the counter. Because there are two hoses, this counter can calculate speed and classification (light, medium or heavy traffic). If you stand on one of the hoses, your classification will be messed up. Also, countings can get messed up, because it takes too long for the second pulse to reach the counter.


----------



## Ingenioren

About the horror of Norwegian roads: This is not a highway, but really cool and dangerous!! Up Jordalen, it's just a short detour off E16 =)


----------



## Jeroen669

I guess such unlightened tunnels aren't a pleasant drive after sunset...


----------



## ElviS77

*E39*

As promised, the next guide coming up.

E39 is a relatively new European route in Norway. It is made up from a bunch of older routes, E18, plus rv 1 (which in itself wasn’t very old, was rv 14 until the 90s) and parts of rv 71 and 65.

Vest-Agder

The route starts in Kristiansand, and the first couple of kms is a 4-lane expressway. After that, a few kms of bad old two-lane, then approx 20 of old 2-lane expressway. Then, an average 2-lane road for the next 50 kms, some stretches are decent, other steep, curvy and quite narrow. The next 20 kms is a brand new road, but there has been considerable criticism of this project, since its only 8.5 metres wide. Mainly a decent road from there to the Rogaland border, built in the 70s and 80s. Speed limits: 50-80 kph.
Plans? Several, most important is the new western link in Kristiansand – a motorway-stretch of about 20 kms. Outside Lyngdal, a new 2+1 expressway will replace the old, poor-quality 2-laner. 20+ years from now, we’ll hopefully see four lanes Kristiansand-Mandal and 2+1 for much of the rest.
Nature includes white sandy beaches, fjords and hills. Quite beautiful, really, and since it’s the southernmost region, you’ll might even get sun and 20+-centigrade bathing temperatures.

Rogaland

The E39 starts inland, and the road is pretty decent for the first 40 kms (one stretch used to be 90 kph), but there are also a few hamlets and villages. The next 35 cross a couple of low mountains, and the road is decent quality, even though there has been talk about removing the 90 kph stretches. But from Ålgård to Sandnes, it’s pretty crappy, a 2-lane urban road. Then, a few kms of 80s crowded 3-lane expressway takes you around Sandnes and eventually onto a proper 2x2 motorway the final 20 kms to Stavanger. However, it’s prone to jams, since it runs along the main oil industry area in Norway, and the off-ramps are no way near good enough to deal with traffic volumes. A stop-gap 2-/4-lane ring road takes you round the city centre and onto a decent 2-lane semi-urban highway. Then, 20 kms of mainly subaqueous tunnel take you to the ferry across Boknafjorden. The 40 kms on the other side is partly new, partly improved 2-lane highway. Speed limits: 50-90 kph.
Projects include 2+1 expressways in the southern part of the county, motorway from Ålgård to Sandnes (the bit around Sandnes is in construction, completion 2009, I think). Through Stavanger, a new motorway tunnel is in preparation, north of the city, a massive 25-km 2x2 tunnel is planned to replace the ferry. Also, the road north of the ferry will be improved, parts will possibly even be motorway. The latter projects, however, are at least beyond 2020.
Nature? Spectacular! Beaches, mountains, fjords, islands, fields…

Hordaland

First stretch is ok highway, then you enter an 8-km subaqueous tunnel with a new road link to the north. An older, suspect highway will take you the 30 kms along Stord island. From there, a pretty long ferry trip to the south of Bergen. The final 20 kms into Bergen is a mix of 2-lane bad urban road, decent 2-lane rural road, 2x2 motorway-style road, 2x2/2x3 expressway. Eventually, you go through a few roundabouts and traffic lights and end up in a huge intersection in the middle of Bergen. From there, a couple of 2x2 tunnels dump you onto 10 kms of motorway. Then, a 2-laner take you to the 2-lane Nordhordaland bridge. The final 70 kms is a mix of modern 2-lane roads, a few tunnels, truly bad 2- and even 1-lane stretches and basically everything in between… Speed limits, as usual between 50 and 90.
Some construction work is happening, parts of the worst stretch will be history this year. The southern link to Bergen – some 15 kms – (as well as the final stretch to the Nordhordaland bridge) will be motorway some time the next decade. Later, a tunnel (probably 2x3) will replace the roundabouts inside the city of Bergen. The ferry south of Bergen will be halved through a new road link sometime around 2013-15, and further into the future, the ferry might be replaced altogether by overland roads plus a bridge or tunnel link.
The nature in this part of Hordaland isn’t as spectacular as a few other places, but still a really nice combination of mountains, sea, forests and a bit of agricultural land.

Sogn og Fjordane

Looong time since I drove here, and there have been some improvements. But, AFAIK, the first few kms to the next ferry across Sognefjorden are 2-lane. The next 75 kms are a mix of newer and older 2-lane stretches, spiced with 1-lane bits and pieces. Some parts are steep, curvy as well as narrow. The next 70 kms is slightly better, but not great. The final 10-km stretch to the Nordfjord ferry is almost new and supposedly quality. The final 20 kms to the Møre og Romsdal border is 2-lane, but not in a good way. Speed limits from 50 to 80 kph.
Several projects, most spectacular a submerged tube across the 1.3-km-deep Sognefjord. Will probably never happen, though. More realistic are further improvements, particularly of the worst and 1-lane stretches. Also, the northern part will be rerouted through the construction of a brand new 20-km road further inland, crossing the Møre og Romsdal border in the process. But to make it really sensible, more new roads need to be built, including a bridge across Nordfjord. The first part will open 2010-12, the latter probably beyond 2020.
The nature along the route is spectacular (though more spectacular roads exist just round the corner); mountains, fjords, glaciers, meadows… 

Møre og Romsdal

Early 90s last time I drove parts of this stretch of road as well, other parts I’ve driven quite recently. It’s a mix of really bad, 1-lane road, more or less decent 2-lane road and ferries. First bit is ok (also to be replaced by the abovementioned new road), then a short ferry. Next stretch is slightly better along a fjord to the next ferry, some 50 kms on. It’s worth noting that the world’s deepest subaqueous tunnel is part of a parallel route which eventually might become the new E39. Then, a bit of urban 2-laner with roundabouts and traffic lights, and then a pretty good road which at least used to be 90 kph. Ok for the next 50 kms as well, then the next, somewhat longer, ferry into Molde. Urban road through there as well, then an ok 2-lane overland stretch eventually dump you in a 40 (!) kph-zone. After that, some relatively new bridges and an ok older 2-laner take you the 25 kms to the final ferry. The final stretch mixes appalling with mediocre and ok. Speed limit: 40-90 kph.
Plans and projects are plenty. The worst stretches (1-lane etc) are being replaced as we speak, shorter improvements are due all over the place over the coming years. But more ambitious plans, where all the ferry links are to be replaced, do exist. These will probably not be realised until 2020-2025 or beyond, and most certainly not without substantial toll fees. 
Nature? Still great, fjords, mountains, hills etc.

Sør-Trøndelag

This piece of road isn’t very long, only about 90 kms, but it nevertheless varies from 1-lane to 2-lane expressway the last 25 kms from Orkanger towards Trondheim (AADT varies from less than 500 to close to 10000…). Speed limit: 50-80 kph.
Plans include a rerouting at Orkanger to replace a steep and curvy piece of road, improvements of the road in other narrow places and a brand new junction with the E6 at Klett when the latter turns motorway in five years or so. Eventually, a dualling of the Klett-Orkanger stretch may become reality, but then we’re probably talking 25 years into the future.
The nature here isn't as spectacular as the one through the western part of the country, but a pleasant drive anyway.


----------



## scotdaliney

ElviS77 said:


> True, but very often, these two are closely linked. That is not to say that doing 90-100 in an 80-zone in itself is reckless (I do it all the time), but - generally speaking - higher speeds equals more and more serious crashes, particularly on undivided highways.
> 
> In terms of accident statistics: It is worth noting that more people die on the road in the summer months than in the winter (even if one considers traffic volumes). Also, by far the most important safety feature was the introduction of seat belt laws, it cut road fatalities by 1/3 more or less over night. In the early 70s, we were hitting 600 dead annualy, now we're down to around 250. 2008, however, has started badly.


Personally, I find the drivers around me that stick exactly to the speed limit or below, often are terrible drivers. They don't follow any other rules, they never indicate, they do mind bogingly stupid things, they pull out in front of people, ect, ect. Often though, they feel they are good drivers simply because they don't speed. It's as if that's the only road rule, the be all and end all of safe driving. This attitide seems to be created by the governments myopic obsession with speeding.


----------



## Pavlov's Dog

Do those traffic fatalities include suicides? My understanding is that a large proportion of head-on collisions with trucks are suicides.


----------



## Verso

^ That can't be proven in most cases though.


----------



## Jeroen669

Pavlov's Dog said:


> Do those traffic fatalities include suicides? My understanding is that a large proportion of head-on collisions with trucks are suicides.


Why would someone with a suicidental tendency do that? The chance it 'fails' is much bigger than with trainjumping, overdoses etc.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

^^ It actually happens, my dad's colleague has experienced it once.


----------



## ElviS77

scotdaliney said:


> Personally, I find the drivers around me that stick exactly to the speed limit or below, often are terrible drivers. They don't follow any other rules, they never indicate, they do mind bogingly stupid things, they pull out in front of people, ect, ect. Often though, they feel they are good drivers simply because they don't speed. It's as if that's the only road rule, the be all and end all of safe driving. This attitide seems to be created by the governments myopic obsession with speeding.


High speed is obviously not the only issue, but - in terms of serious injuries or fatalities - it is involved in some way or another. That's simple physics. In short: No matter how good a car is made, the human body cannot withstand the decelaration forces involved in a head-on collision at much more than 70 kph, a fact which in many ways suggest that undivided highways should never see a limit higher than 70.

However, that low an absolute limit is unacceptable even to safety-obsessed Norwegian road authorities. Instead, risk evaluation becomes the order of the day: Roads considered unsafe (usually 2-lane undivided roads with considerable traffic) get 70-zones. Other roads keep the normal 80 kph limit, and high-quality rural roads with low traffic maintain their 90 limits.

Such an approach is seen by many as an embrace of the fact that many roads aren't up to the job they're intended to do, and that the real answer isn't lower speed limits, speed cameras and a considerable police presence, but rather more and better roads built. This may well be the case, but reality still kicks in for me: These roads are all we have at the moment, and our only option is to regulate them as best we can. I truly believe (and any serious research will show you the truth in this) that fighting speeding - as well as drunk driving etc - reduces road fatalities and injuries: The simple fact is that Norway - even with poor roads, bad weather and an almost absurd lack of divided roads and motorways - has a safety record second to very few. To a large degree, this is because of strict legislation and enforcement.

Even though I find our motorway limits ridiculously low (such roads are a different kettle of fish altogether), there is no doubt that speeding kills on those as well. 120-130 kph is a reasonable and safe speed on modern motorways, 180-200 is not. 

In addition: Currently, it is more or less "accepted" that road traffic takes 250 lives annually... in Norway alone. In any other form of transport, that would be completely uacceptable - planes would be grounded and trains stopped. Even a single "near-miss" incident may cause serious problems for the involved partys. Shouldn't every road traveller be as safety-minded and accept that the limit probably is there for a reason..?


----------



## Verso

Does anyone know when the border crossing with Russia was opened? I know it wasn't yet E105 a few years ago, so I'm interested, if there was a border crossing prior to that at all.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

ElviS77 said:


> High speed is obviously not the only issue, but - in terms of serious injuries or fatalities - it is involved in some way or another. That's simple physics. In short: No matter how good a car is made, the human body cannot withstand the decelaration forces involved in a head-on collision at much more than 70 kph, a fact which in many ways suggest that undivided highways should never see a limit higher than 70.


This, of course, only applies to cars with air-bags (which almost all cars now have) and when seat belts are used. Also, I am not certain if you can survive if you crash head on in 70 km/h with a vehicle much heavier than your own (i.e. if you collide with a truck).


ElviS77 said:


> However, that low an absolute limit is unacceptable even to safety-obsessed Norwegian road authorities. Instead, risk evaluation becomes the order of the day: Roads considered unsafe (usually 2-lane undivided roads with considerable traffic) get 70-zones. Other roads keep the normal 80 kph limit, and high-quality rural roads with low traffic maintain their 90 limits.


The biggest problem with the many new 70-zones (and 80-zones), as I see it, is that people really don't understand them. In fact, a change of the speed limit from 80 to 70 usually leads to a decrease of the real speed of only a few km/h. Many more people has thus has lost respect of the speed limit system altogether, which I personally believe explains a lot of the speeding you see today. 



Verso said:


> Does anyone know when the border crossing with Russia was opened? I know it wasn't yet E105 a few years ago, so I'm interested, if there was a border crossing prior to that at all.


From 1950 until 1991, I believe, any form of communication across the border, be it by car, foot, voice or any other kind of medium was forbidden by law both from the Soviet and Norwegian side of border. At times (for instance 1968), the tension could be quite high, as Norway and Turkey was the only NATO countries that had a border with the Soviet Union, and to make things worse, the Sovjet Union had their North fleet stationed right across the border. This, of course, was of great hindrance to the people up there who traditionally were not used to any border at all. In fact, at some point, the people of the northernmost province of Norway was taxed by three governments.....


----------



## Ingenioren

The reason why one would commit suicide in a head on collision is to give your family benefit of a life insurance, since it is that hard to prove ;P 

The Storskog border crossing has been open for a while, first in 1911 a toll-station was opened in Kirkenes, there was only 1500 travellers in 1980 and since 1991 it has been permanently open and numbers where increased to 80 000 ;D It's still not an easy border to cross, visa from Oslo is needed for Norwegians...








http://www.statsbygg.no/prosjekter/prosjektkatalog/624_storskog/html/infotekst/historikk.html


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

Ingenioren said:


> http://www.statsbygg.no/prosjekter/prosjektkatalog/624_storskog/html/infotekst/historikk.html


Interesting article, it says the traffic (persons) was 131 000 in 1999 and 120 000 in 2001. 

The regulations prior to 1991 I mentioned above was of course about unsactioned acitivity. Prior to 1991, the border station was normally not open, and you had to apply to both the Norwegian and Soviet authorities in advance, with the desired crossing time indicated. Allmost all crossings were official delegations or some kind of cultural exchange. Other than that, not even a wink or hand waving was allowed....

Recently, the Norwegian government has btw decided to make it significantly easier for Russians to work and migrate to (Northern) Norway, and Russians living close to the border will no longer need to apply for a visa for each trip, so probably the traffic across Storskog will increase in the years to come.


----------



## Verso

Thanks, very interesting! I'll post some in the border crossings thread.

Cyrillic in Norway. 









_http://www.barentsphoto.com/viewimage2.php?folder=14153&no=16_


----------



## Timon91

^^Interesting to see. Does anyone have more pics of this border crossing?


----------



## Verso

^ Go to the border-crossing thread.


----------



## ElviS77

54°26′S 3°24′E;20916195 said:


> This, of course, only applies to cars with air-bags (which almost all cars now have) and when seat belts are used. Also, I am not certain if you can survive if you crash head on in 70 km/h with a vehicle much heavier than your own (i.e. if you collide with a truck).
> 
> The biggest problem with the many new 70-zones (and 80-zones), as I see it, is that people really don't understand them. In fact, a change of the speed limit from 80 to 70 usually leads to a decrease of the real speed of only a few km/h. Many more people has thus has lost respect of the speed limit system altogether, which I personally believe explains a lot of the speeding you see today.


First, it's quite clear that every safety measure needs to be used to survive a 70 kph head-on crash, and equally clear that crashing with a lorry is a very different story. But my point was simply that even if you collide with a similarly-sized vehichle, 70 is max if you want to survive.

It may very well be that people do not understand the virtue of reduced speed limits. Nevertheless, the speed limit reduction from 80 to 70 on many Norwegian roads has reduced accident rates dramatically. Reduction from 90 to 80 has so far failed to have a similar impact, probably because the reason for such a reduction on our highest quality 2-lane roads is harder to see.

The reasons for modern-day speeding are many, but our current limits aren't particularly to blame. The system is actually developing towards something that takes road safety into account: the 80-anywhere-there-aren't-too-many-houses-in-the-vicinity-system we used to have was completely pointless. Today, those roads see anything from 70-100 (motorways may well see 110 in a few years).


----------



## ElviS77

Sorry... double post.


----------



## Jeroen669

It looks a bit the same as in Belgium. Generally, there's a 90km/h limit on 2-lane highways, but more and more roads are getting downgraded there to 70km/h at places in small rural build-up areas.


----------



## Jeroen669

Something I noticed on maps is that a lot of norwegian cities, even some small villages, have a very straight street pattern in city-centres. Is there a (historical) explanation for this?

E.g. Kristiansand:


----------



## ElviS77

Jeroen669 said:


> Something I noticed on maps is that a lot of norwegian cities, even some small villages, have a very straight street pattern in city-centres. Is there a (historical) explanation for this?
> 
> E.g. Kristiansand:


Generally, yes. In terms of Kristiansand, the Danish-Norwegian king Christian IV (after whom the city has its name) insisted that the city should have straight streets and square blocks. The same happened in Oslo (which was Christiania/Kristiania until 1924), but due to the rapid expansion of the city in the 19th century, it's better hidden, and also in Trondheim. 

When it comes to smaller towns, their street systems are either based on old rural roads (like most Norwegian highways) or a result of more or less Modernist planning from the 20s and onwards. In the latter case, you'll obviously find a lot of straight streets with 90-degree intersections.


----------



## ElviS77

*E16 - indecision highway...*

Eventually, the road guide returns... The reason I call it "indesision highway" will hpoefully be clear in the next few paragraphs. The E16 is the E route linking Oslo and Bergen (even though it really starts/stops a few kms outside both cities).

Akershus:
The first 15+ kms from the junction with E18 runs through Akershus county. Not much to see, and the road isn't much either. A short 4-lane stretch aside, the remainder is partly Norway's busiest 2-laner (AADT 30,000+) and a narrow and partly steep and curvy 2-laner mainly through a town. Limit? 50-70. Luckily, this road will be replaced by Norway's most overdue motorway, parts open next year, the rest around 2012. That is, apart from the junction with the E18, since that road also will be rebuilt - but not until past 2015.

Buskerud:
Opens with 15 kms of 2-lane expressway, then 15 kms of normal 2-laner, then 15 of (unposted) expressway and eventually about 40 of normal 2-laner again, in places curvy, but not too bad. Not a super-touristy piece of highway here either, but some lakes, rivers and forest. Speed limit from 50 to 80 kph. Plans include motorway to Hønefoss (the first 25 kms), and general improvement (possibly expressway) of the rest. The first is beyond 2015, the second probably beyond 2020.

Oppland:
Starts with about 40 kms of normal highway, then 10 kms of narrow, steep and curvy road along a gorge, then about 20 kms of semi-rural ok 2-lane highway into and through Fagernes. The next few kms are hopeless, but the next 60 kms through Valdres are ok, stretches have been improved in the 90s and 00s. The 15 km climb up to the Filefjell plateau is steep, but being rebuilt, and the final few kms on the plateau to the county border are quite straight. Pleasant nature through the valley, and even though the Filefjell isn't the most spectacular of Norway's mountains, it's more than worthwhile. Plans? General improvement plus realignment around Fagernes and in the narrow gorge. Probably beyond 2015, though.

Sogn og Fjordane:
Narrow, curvy and steep 15 kms down from the mountain, the 30+ kms in the valley used to be horrible, but most parts are improved or being improved. Then, 24 kms through the Lærdal tunnel, 9 kms of proper 2-laner, then first 5, then 11.5 kms of tunnel. Final 10 kms a decent stretch of highway. Limit 50-80 kph. The area differs from quite beautiful to exceptional, narrow fjords and steep mountains, although you'll miss most of it inside the mountain. If you have the time, do the ferry Lærdal-Gudvangen or the mountain road over the Lærdal tunnel. Plans? To get it to decent 2-lane highway standard, and not all that much remains. The climb onto the plateau will be finished around 2013, I think.

Hordaland:
The remaining 130 kms is in Hordaland. The very first stretch is an 70s or 80s tunnel highway, then 30 kms of varying standard including villages and 1-lane stretches, but also ok 2-lane pieces. Then through the township of Voss, dumping it onto 40 kms of 80s highway followed by 30 kms of 70s highway, both with tons of tunnels. The next 10 kms is 2-lane expressway-ish, still through tunnels, and the final 15 km part onto the junction with E39 north of Bergen is reasonable 2-laner (into Bergen there is a motorway). Speed limit between 40 and 80. Beautiful scenery, particularly the first part. Mountains, fjords, valleys. Plans? The first part into Voss to be a 2+1 expressway in ten years or so, past Voss a 2-lane tunnel is completed 2012-15. The expressway stretch will be dualled into a proper motorway (2020-ish), and from Arna, an 8-km twin tube tunnel will dump the road in Bergen proper, shortening the stretch by 15-20 kms. Not before 2015, though.

Oh, almost forgot. "Indecision highway"... 

First, the E16 isn't the only link between Oslo and Bergen, there are several. The rv 7+52 link is even a trunk road parallell to the E16, the rv 7 is the shortest (with a ferry for another five years, though), the E134+a few rvs pretty short and will be shorter with the construction of the Jondal tunnel (also including a ferry)... Instead of commiting themseves to one link, the politicians/bureaucrats have allowed themselves to be held hostage by local politicians, fearful of losing road construction funds. "What?!" you may understandably say, "The national road network isn't something local politicians can decide..." In Norway, it actually is. Partly because local democracy itself is rather strong, but mostly because the counties used to administrate national road fundings themselves. Noone have told them that this was supposed to change with the trunk road system...

Second, the Arna-Bergen bit has been changed from south to north(hopefully, we'll eventually see "straight through Ulriken"), Voss-Trengereid used to run along the Hardanger fjord... Then, there's the debate of which valley should get the main road (see above) and the newest issue - lenghtening the road into Sweden (Gävle). If so, should the Norwegian stretch run north of Oslo along the current rv 35 to Gardermoen airport - albeit with an arm down to Sandvika - or through Oslo, along E18, taking the 190 through the city and then along the E6..? They've just started debating, don't expect an answer soon...

In short, what has the road done to deserve this..?


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

^^ I think most Norwegians agree that the current route of E16 is NOT the most natural choice between Oslo and Bergen. At the time when the current main road between Oslo and Bergen was selected, and the Lærdal tunnel was approved, the transport minister of Norway, Opseth, was from Sogn og Fjordande, and that says a little bit about how much local politics goes in Norway. In my opinion, the politicians should keep their hands off planning of the national trunk road network, and leave the decisions to the national road authorities like in most other countries.

In the future, I am convinced that the main road between Oslo and Bergen will follow a route similar to either present rv 7 (Hardangervidda) or E136 (Haukelifjell), the latter could be used for a combined route for both Stavanger and Bergen if the 25 km Boknafjord tunnels and a few other fjord crossing projects are developed.

There is BTW a similar situation between Oslo and Trondheim. The official main road is E6, but almost all truck traffic and Norwegian (i.e. non-tourist) through traffic uses rv 3 which is shorter and with easier terrain. Again, local politics is a major factor.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

*Nord Trøndelag gets its first 4-lane*

Nord-Trøndelag silently opened its first four lane road recently between Vist and Sørlia south of Steinkjer:








Note that north on this map for some reason is to the right!








Here is a video from the 3.4 km stretch. The road is only 16 m wide and hence not of motorway standard. New 16 m roads are no longer projected in Norway, according to the new standards a 4 lane road has to be at least 18 m wide. This is part of a bigger project for a new E6 south of Steinkjer, and coincidentally, just prior to the opening there was a detonation that went wrong during the construction of the part of the project that will open next summer, and both the railway and the current (old) E6 was closed. 








Hence the lack of celebration for the new road, but the road authorities should not have been too surprised, because the name of the hill is Løsberga, i.e. Loose Cliffs.... The project has also been a bit controversial since the new highway goes straight through Steinkjer city center, with 7 new roundabouts. The traffic north of Steinkjer is quite low, though.


----------



## ElviS77

54°26′S 3°24′E;22926448 said:


> ^^ I think most Norwegians agree that the current route of E16 is NOT the most natural choice between Oslo and Bergen. At the time when the current main road between Oslo and Bergen was selected, and the Lærdal tunnel was approved, the transport minister of Norway, Opseth, was from Sogn og Fjordande, and that says a little bit about how much local politics goes in Norway. In my opinion, the politicians should keep their hands off planning of the national trunk road network, and leave the decisions to the national road authorities like in most other countries.
> 
> In the future, I am convinced that the main road between Oslo and Bergen will follow a route similar to either present rv 7 (Hardangervidda) or E136 (Haukelifjell), the latter could be used for a combined route for both Stavanger and Bergen if the 25 km Boknafjord tunnels and a few other fjord crossing projects are developed.
> 
> There is BTW a similar situation between Oslo and Trondheim. The official main road is E6, but almost all truck traffic and Norwegian (i.e. non-tourist) through traffic uses rv 3 which is shorter and with easier terrain. Again, local politics is a major factor.


First of all, this is a guide describing the actual situation more than my personal preferences. But to make a few comments: First, both the E16, the rv7/52 combination and the E134 (not E136, that goes from Dombås to Ålesund) has its merits. Anyway, the most important thing is to make a decision, prioritize. 

In terms of the alternatives: The E16, although the longest, is by far the best connection in wintertime, the road is almost never closed. The E134 is a short link and it is important anyway, linking northern Rogaland (and even Stavanger, when the Boknafjord crossing is eventually built) to Oslo. However, as a Bergen link it has major weaknesses: The link between Røldal and Trengereid outside Bergen is abysmal in places and the ferry won't go away in decades, if ever. The E134 itself (I'll get back to that road in a guide later) crosses over several hills even before the Haukeli plateau. It will eventually be improved, though, but I see it more as the Oslo-Rogaland link.

The rv7 is out of the question. It crosses the Hardangervidda national park, the pass is at 1250 metres more than 200 metres higher than Filefjell (and thus closed for long periods in the winter), wild reindeer is an issue, not to mention the long and steep climb on the western side. That leaves the rv7/52 through Hemsedal. This makes far more sense, both because it's shorter than the E16 (and becoming even shorter in a few years time as 20 kms will be shaved off due to the new Sokna-Ørgenvika road) and because it's important as a link Between Oslo and the Hallingdal and Hemsedal anyway. The mountain pass is steeper and somewhat higher than Filefjell, but it's relatively short and managable.

Nonetheless, the important thing is to decide, to choose either option and stick by it. Yes, Opseth was from Sogn og Fjordane, but Filefjell has always carried the European route Oslo-Bergen, way before him. Besides, he actually made decisions and stuck by them (Gardermoen airport...), which is exactly what Norwegian infrastructure needs. Ok, you and I disagree with his choices, but he got things done. 

The E6/rv3 is a very different story. Yes, the rv 3 is 40 kms shorter and has a far lower mountain pass, but it runs through a virtually uninhabited area. The AADT isn't much more than 3,000 north of Rena, and across the Kvikne plateau it's lower. The E6, however, has an AADT in excess of 10,000 to north of Lillehammer, and through Gudbrandsdalen, we see an AADT of between 5,000 and 10,000. The same is true (albeit with lower numbers) north of the mountain. In short, the E6 corridor sees more traffic than the rv 3 corridor, even if every single vehicle traveling from Oslo to Trondheim were to use the rv 3. Besides, with the volumes of traffic going north-south, two main links makes sense whereas four links Oslo-Bergen do not.


----------



## ElviS77

54°26′S 3°24′E;22927228 said:


> Nord-Trøndelag silently opened its first four lane road recently between Vist and Sørlia south of Steinkjer:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Note that north on this map for some reason is to the right!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a video from the 3.4 km stretch. The road is only 16 m wide and hence not of motorway standard. New 16 m roads are no longer projected in Norway, according to the new standards a 4 lane road has to be at least 18 m wide. This is part of a bigger project for a new E6 south of Steinkjer, and coincidentally, just prior to the opening there was a detonation that went wrong during the construction of the part of the project that will open next summer, and both the railway and the current (old) E6 was closed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hence the lack of celebration for the new road, but the road authorities should not have been too surprised, because the name of the hill is Løsberga, i.e. Loose Cliffs.... The project has also been a bit controversial since the new highway goes straight through Steinkjer city center, with 7 new roundabouts. The traffic north of Steinkjer is quite low, though.


The road through Steinkjer is another example of a useless road in need of replacement already before if was opened, and it's a disgrace that it's a part of the E6 - a new part... In terms of 16.5-metre roads: They are being built and will continue to be built on stretches with an expected AADT in the 8,000-12,000 range (it is in fact a 2+2 version of the 14.5-metre 2+1). The rv 80 project outside Bodø is planned partly as a 16.5, the rv 2 Kløfta-Kongsvinger might see more 16.5 than the 10 kms already in operation, the E18 through Østfold might get it east of Momarken.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

ElviS77 said:


> First of all, this is a guide describing the actual situation more than my personal preferences. But to make a few comments: First, both the E16, the rv7/52 combination and the E134 (not E136, that goes from Dombås to Ålesund) has its merits. Anyway, the most important thing is to make a decision, prioritize.
> 
> In terms of the alternatives: The E16, although the longest, is by far the best connection in wintertime, the road is almost never closed. The E134 is a short link and it is important anyway, linking northern Rogaland (and even Stavanger, when the Boknafjord crossing is eventually built) to Oslo. However, as a Bergen link it has major weaknesses: The link between Røldal and Trengereid outside Bergen is abysmal in places and the ferry won't go away in decades, if ever. The E134 itself (I'll get back to that road in a guide later) crosses over several hills even before the Haukeli plateau. It will eventually be improved, though, but I see it more as the Oslo-Rogaland link.
> 
> The rv7 is out of the question. It crosses the Hardangervidda national park, the pass is at 1250 metres more than 200 metres higher than Filefjell (and thus closed for long periods in the winter), wild reindeer is an issue, not to mention the long and steep climb on the western side. That leaves the rv7/52 through Hemsedal. This makes far more sense, both because it's shorter than the E16 (and becoming even shorter in a few years time as 20 kms will be shaved off due to the new Sokna-Ørgenvika road) and because it's important as a link Between Oslo and the Hallingdal and Hemsedal anyway. The mountain pass is steeper and somewhat higher than Filefjell, but it's relatively short and managable.


I agree on most of this, but I am talking in long term, where new tunnels could make the mountain crossings considerably easier. Also, there is a great push to make Stavanger-Bergen ferry-free, at which point Haukeli is viable also for Bergen. This is in fact in line with what both bilaksjonen (road) and some high speed train proposals call for, a T-connection between Oslo and Bergen/Stavanger.



ElviS77 said:


> The E6/rv3 is a very different story. Yes, the rv 3 is 40 kms shorter and has a far lower mountain pass, but it runs through a virtually uninhabited area. The AADT isn't much more than 3,000 north of Rena, and across the Kvikne plateau it's lower. The E6, however, has an AADT in excess of 10,000 to north of Lillehammer, and through Gudbrandsdalen, we see an AADT of between 5,000 and 10,000. The same is true (albeit with lower numbers) north of the mountain. In short, the E6 corridor sees more traffic than the rv 3 corridor, even if every single vehicle traveling from Oslo to Trondheim were to use the rv 3. Besides, with the volumes of traffic going north-south, two main links makes sense whereas four links Oslo-Bergen do not.


[/quote]
Of course the current E6 running through Gudbrandsdalen is an important road, but it is not the through road connecting central and Northern Norway to the rest of the country and Europe, that would be Rv 3. E6 north of the split with the rv 3 at Kolomoen serves the inland cities Hamar and Lillehammer, the North-Western county of Møre og Romsdal and partly Sogn og Fjordande. Hence, the Gudbrandsdalen road should in my opinion be marked E-136, and the current rv 3 should be marked E6. Of course we need both routes, and both need heavy investments, although it would be much easier to expand rv 3 to a proper motorway. Btw, although rv 3 has lower traffic numbers on some spots than the E6, it carries 90% of the truck traffic between Oslo and Trondheim, and the truck traffic on this road in fact corresponds to what you find on a 10 000 AADT average Norwegian road.


ElviS77 said:


> The road through Steinkjer is another example of a useless road in need of replacement already before if was opened, and it's a disgrace that it's a part of the E6 - a new part... In terms of 16.5-metre roads: They are being built and will continue to be built on stretches with an expected AADT in the 8,000-12,000 range (it is in fact a 2+2 version of the 14.5-metre 2+1). The rv 80 project outside Bodø is planned partly as a 16.5, the rv 2 Kløfta-Kongsvinger might see more 16.5 than the 10 kms already in operation, the E18 through Østfold might get it east of Momarken.


Probably I should not trust the media on this so I checked the standards. Actually, the standard calls for 12.5 m divided two-lane road in this AADT range (S5) with three passing lanes in each direction per 10 km. If these passing lanes coincide, the road becomes 16.5 m. I guess some local politicians and road builders push this a bit to build 16.5 m all the way....Anyway, a problem with these standards is that the projected AADT numbers always are too low, and they make our road network look like a patchwork, with a new standard every few kms. There does not seem to be a coherent strategy to actually bind the country together. The Germans planned to build a motorway network in Norway, I wonder if it will take another 60-70 years before it materializes....


----------



## ElviS77

54°26′S 3°24′E;22931716 said:


> I agree on most of this, but I am talking in long term, where new tunnels could make the mountain crossings considerably easier. Also, there is a great push to make Stavanger-Bergen ferry-free, at which point Haukeli is viable also for Bergen. This is in fact in line with what both bilaksjonen (road) and some high speed train proposals call for, a T-connection between Oslo and Bergen/Stavanger.


Yes, but even with new tunnels, a shorter Haukeli link to bergen would require a new road through Hardanger, including a second Hardangerfjord crossing. Very unlikely. Linking the E134 to a future ferry-free E39 would not cut current travel time Oslo-Bergen by much, if at all.



54°26′S 3°24′E;22931716 said:


> Of course the current E6 running through Gudbrandsdalen is an important road, but it is not the through road connecting central and Northern Norway to the rest of the country and Europe, that would be Rv 3. E6 north of the split with the rv 3 at Kolomoen serves the inland cities Hamar and Lillehammer, the North-Western county of Møre og Romsdal and partly Sogn og Fjordande. Hence, the Gudbrandsdalen road should in my opinion be marked E-136, and the current rv 3 should be marked E6. Of course we need both routes, and both need heavy investments, although it would be much easier to expand rv 3 to a proper motorway. Btw, although rv 3 has lower traffic numbers on some spots than the E6, it carries 90% of the truck traffic between Oslo and Trondheim, and the truck traffic on this road in fact corresponds to what you find on a 10 000 AADT average Norwegian road.


It will never happen. Mostly because the entire E6 has more traffic than the rv 3 (for most of the stretch, the difference is significant and will, as stated, stay that way even if all north-south traffic were to use the rv 3). In addition, a new part motorway, part 2+1 expressway through Gudbrandsdalen (which will happen in a few years) will steal traffic from the rv 3. Finally, afaik, lorries constitute some 20-25% of the traffic along the rv 3. Although this is a lot and considerably more than the 10-15% on average trunk roads, it's still no more than what you find on a 5,000 AADT (not 10,000) road. 

Don't get me wrong, I'm all in favour of improving the rv 3, but it'll never become the main north-south artery.


----------



## Norsko

What kind of road is that new 2+2 up there. Expressroad or "smal 4 feltsmotorvei"? Looks really nice, but the lack of emergency lines made me wonder about this.


----------



## ElviS77

Norsko said:


> What kind of road is that new 2+2 up there. Expressroad or "smal 4 feltsmotorvei"? Looks really nice, but the lack of emergency lines made me wonder about this.


"Motortrafikkvei" (expressway), not motorway. 2+2 version of the 2+1/1+1. Profile width 16.5, vs 14.5 for the 2+1 and 12.5 for the 1+1.


----------



## Norsko

^^ Ok Thanks. Yellow signs and less than 100 km/h then?


----------



## khoojyh

Norway looks very green and comfortable.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

ElviS77 said:


> Yes, but even with new tunnels, a shorter Haukeli link to bergen would require a new road through Hardanger, including a second Hardangerfjord crossing. Very unlikely. Linking the E134 to a future ferry-free E39 would not cut current travel time Oslo-Bergen by much, if at all.


Bruk Odda!
I guess with a map everything should be clearer (also for me).....








I am guessing you are aware of the suggestions from the "Haukelifjellets venner" group? (link only in Norwegian)
As you rightly points out, another Hardangerfjord crossing (to me the currently approved crossing does not seem very smart), would really be an advantage for the Haukeliroad. Even if the ferry is maintained at the Jondal-Tørrvikbukt crossing, however, Haukeli would be a much better alternative since it is 130 km shorter than the current E16. The Jondal-Rosendal tunnel is as far as I know already approved (only one tube, of course). At the same time they should also build new tunnels accross Haukelifjell which seriously would ease the pain for the trucks:







(check this Norwegian article for a discussion of these tunnels)

What I like about the Haukeli proposal is that it would cut short to both Bergen and Stavanger with more than 100 km, saving a lot of fuel, time and money each year. However, I think we should complete the considerably less ambitious project of building a decent road Oslo-Trondheim and Oslo-Kristiansand first.



ElviS77 said:


> It will never happen. Mostly because the entire E6 has more traffic than the rv 3 (for most of the stretch, the difference is significant and will, as stated, stay that way even if all north-south traffic were to use the rv 3).


You might be right about the conclusion, but I think the reason we most likely would have status quo is opportunistic local politics and not national rationality. The politicians from both Oppland (which the current E6 runs through) and Møre og Romsdal (which the current E6 currently connects in the North-Western corner of Southern Norway) would strongly oppose a renumbering because that may mean a reduction of status and hence funding of "their" road. In addition Oppland probably fear a reduction of visiting tourist who currently "blindly" follow the E6 on their way to Northern Norway. In fact, a renumbering has ben suggested many times already, but always met strong opposition from exactly these counties.

However, I maintain that the rational thing to do would be to put the E6 along Østerdalen where the Germans planned to build their Autobahn 65 years ago. That Gudbrandsdalen has more traffic is really not an argument, the E6 is for transit traffic, not local or regional traffic, and the transit traffic to Molde/Ålesund could be covered by extending the E136 down to Kolomoen.

The traffic across the Dovre mountain pass (current E6) is BTW almost identical to what you have across Kvikne (rv 3), the same is true where the roads meet at the northern end of rv 3 in Ulsberg. However, the rv 3 has many times higher truck traffic as the E6 both across Dovre and south of Ulsberg is mainly for local/regional/recreational traffic.



ElviS77 said:


> In addition, a new part motorway, part 2+1 expressway through Gudbrandsdalen (which will happen in a few years) will steal traffic from the rv 3.


Hardly. It currently takes about an hour more to drive the E6 than rv 3 under good circumstances, and the E6 is packed with local traffic, speed cameras and tight turns, goes 300 m higher than rv 3, and is sometimes closed during winter. During summer traffic is often slowed down by continental RVs with drivers looking at the scenery rather than their rear mirror. It would take a lot of construction, including a long and expensive Dovre tunnel before E6 becomes the preferred route for other than tourists.


ElviS77 said:


> Finally, afaik, lorries constitute some 20-25% of the traffic along the rv 3. Although this is a lot and considerably more than the 10-15% on average trunk roads, it's still no more than what you find on a 5,000 AADT (not 10,000) road.


It might be a matter of definition what "heavy traffic" is. The fact is that rv 3 has a very high percentage of the longest trucks (>16 m). According to the road authorities "stamvegutredning"-report a few years back rv 3 has a traffic level of the longest truck which you find on other main roads with 4-5 times higher AADT.


ElviS77 said:


> Don't get me wrong, I'm all in favour of improving the rv 3, but it'll never become the main north-south artery.


But IT HAS already for a long time been the main artery, and is increasingly so. The transit traffic is much larger on the rv 3 than E6, so what we are talking about changing the map so it fits the facts on the ground. In addition, it is hardly any place in Norway where you can get more road for your money. Østerdalen is relatively flat, and environmental and area conflicts is almost absent. Along E6 in Gudbrandsdalen and not at least Dovre there are potential conflicts everywhere.


ElviS77 said:


> "Motortrafikkvei" (expressway), not motorway. 2+2 version of the 2+1/1+1. Profile width 16.5, vs 14.5 for the 2+1 and 12.5 for the 1+1.


Actually, I think this road is built after an obsolete "very narrow" four lane standard, and I am not sure whether it is "motortrafikkvei". 


Norsko said:


> ^^ Ok Thanks. Yellow signs and less than 100 km/h then?


80 km/h


----------



## ElviS77

54°26′S 3°24′E;23000548 said:


> You might be right about the conclusion, but I think the reason we most likely would have status quo is opportunistic local politics and not national rationality. The politicians from both Oppland (which the current E6 runs through) and Møre og Romsdal (which the current E6 currently connects in the North-Western corner of Southern Norway) would strongly oppose a renumbering because that may mean a reduction of status and hence funding of "their" road. In addition Oppland probably fear a reduction of visiting tourist who currently "blindly" follow the E6 on their way to Northern Norway. In fact, a renumbering has ben suggested many times already, but always met strong opposition from exactly these counties.


Two things: Here, the politicians actually made their choice (a good thing!), and for many good reasons, chief among which the fact that it's a far busier stretch of road. Of course, the rv 3 is shorter and lower, but again: It will never happen. In my opinion, it's better to keep one's wishes within the realms of reality, thus things might actually happen.



54°26′S 3°24′E;23000548 said:


> However, I maintain that the rational thing to do would be to put the E6 along Østerdalen where the Germans planned to build their Autobahn 65 years ago. That Gudbrandsdalen has more traffic is really not an argument, the E6 is for transit traffic, not local or regional traffic, and the transit traffic to Molde/Ålesund could be covered by extending the E136 down to Kolomoen.


There are arguments for both options, but - as I've said - the choice is made, and messing with that will only lead to even less funding of projects in both corridors. And that we don't need. Transit traffic is important, but total traffic volume also has to be taken into consideration.



54°26′S 3°24′E;23000548 said:


> The traffic across the Dovre mountain pass (current E6) is BTW almost identical to what you have across Kvikne (rv 3), the same is true where the roads meet at the northern end of rv 3 in Ulsberg. However, the rv 3 has many times higher truck traffic as the E6 both across Dovre and south of Ulsberg is mainly for local/regional/recreational traffic.


True. Apart for the "many times higher" conclusion", it's about double. For the rest of the roads (about 75%, Kolomoen-Lillehammer vs Kolomoen-Tynset plus Oppdal-Ulsberg vs Kvikne-Ulsberg), the situation is very different. 



54°26′S 3°24′E;23000548 said:


> Hardly. It currently takes about an hour more to drive the E6 than rv 3 under good circumstances, and the E6 is packed with local traffic, speed cameras and tight turns, goes 300 m higher than rv 3, and is sometimes closed during winter. During summer traffic is often slowed down by continental RVs with drivers looking at the scenery rather than their rear mirror. It would take a lot of construction, including a long and expensive Dovre tunnel before E6 becomes the preferred route for other than tourists.


First: I've driven both roads on a regular basis. I've never, ever (summer, winter, autumn, spring, night or day, busy or quiet) been able to save more than 40 mins, normally we're talking +/- 30 mins. Second: With a motorway along Mjøsa, a 2+1 through the entire Gudbrandsdal (even shortening the stretch by 5-10 kms), the average travel speed will increase considerably. Even without a new Dovre climb or top tunnel.



54°26′S 3°24′E;23000548 said:


> It might be a matter of definition what "heavy traffic" is. The fact is that rv 3 has a very high percentage of the longest trucks (>16 m). According to the road authorities "stamvegutredning"-report a few years back rv 3 has a traffic level of the longest truck which you find on other main roads with 4-5 times higher AADT..


It's higher, yes, but when you're talking 4-5 times higher, it suggests a HGV percentage of some 50%... 



54°26′S 3°24′E;23000548 said:


> But IT HAS already for a long time been the main artery, and is increasingly so. The transit traffic is much larger on the rv 3 than E6, so what we are talking about changing the map so it fits the facts on the ground. In addition, it is hardly any place in Norway where you can get more road for your money. Østerdalen is relatively flat, and environmental and area conflicts is almost absent. Along E6 in Gudbrandsdalen and not at least Dovre there are potential conflicts everywhere.


The total traffic volume is, as I've said a few times, heavier on 75% of the E6 (the remainder is about the same), most of it even considerably heavier. That makes a difference, no matter which route most of the transit traffic use. I realise that you'd like to see an expressway through Østerdalen, and your arguments are sensible. But there are good arguments supporting the Gudbrandsdalen link as well, and - most importantly - those have been heard. The alternatives are to support a proper E6 and work for a decent rv 3 or to promote idealistic projects that won't be realised. Ever.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

ElviS77 said:


> In my opinion, it's better to keep one's wishes within the realms of reality, thus things might actually happen.


Road numbers aren't exactly written in stone, and has been changed several times in the past. Regarding this particular discussion, the issue is publicly discussed quite frequently. If Norway adopted the model of most other countries, where national roads are not decided by local politics but the national road authority with the task of making a trunk way system binding the country together, things could turn out very differently.


ElviS77 said:


> There are arguments for both options, but - as I've said - the choice is made, and messing with that will only lead to even less funding of projects in both corridors. And that we don't need. Transit traffic is important, but total traffic volume also has to be taken into consideration.


I don't see how changing road numbers would decrease funding, the competition between the two roads is a real issue in any case, and almost led to a breakdown of the road alliance between Hedmark and Oppland.



ElviS77 said:


> True. Apart for the "many times higher" conclusion", it's about double.
> It's higher, yes, but when you're talking 4-5 times higher, it suggests a HGV percentage of some 50%...


Check the link, I did not make up the 4-5 times higher claim. The confusion may be caused by different definitions of what heavy traffic is, more than 3.5 t or more than 16 m? (And at night it feels very much like every second car is a truck on rv 3, BTW)



ElviS77 said:


> First: I've driven both roads on a regular basis. I've never, ever (summer, winter, autumn, spring, night or day, busy or quiet) been able to save more than 40 mins, normally we're talking +/- 30 mins.


I don't understand this. 40 km should take at least 30 minutes alone. In addition, the speed limits are still considerably higher on the rv 3, and the traffic is much more likely to slow you down on the E6, because the traffic is higher, there are fewer passing possibilities and curves and hills slow heavy vehicles down on the E6. I have driven between Oslo and Trondheim far too many times, and in my experience, it is at least one hour difference (OK, it is also a bit more tempting to have a slightly heavy right foot on the rv 3...)


ElviS77 said:


> Second: With a motorway along Mjøsa, a 2+1 through the entire Gudbrandsdal (even shortening the stretch by 5-10 kms), the average travel speed will increase considerably. Even without a new Dovre climb or top tunnel.


We are probably talking about minutes of saved time here. Whatever you do,
the time difference won't be less than 30 minutes, and unless you make a very long tunnel, the trucks will also still use considerable more gas on E6. By digging a couple of much shorter tunnels, it is BTW also possible to make the Kvikne passage of rv 3 even lower. 

Another factor is that nobody actually wants the traffic from rv 3 transferred to Gudbrandsdalen, it would create even greater problems there, and as you might know, the E6 passes through a very vulnerable ecosystem across Dovre, and nobody wants to see a doubling of the traffic there.

Perhaps if you build a continous motorway Oslo- Dombås and expressway Dombås-Ulsberg and at the same time freezes any development in Østerdalen the alternatives can perhaps become similar on a time budget, but not on a fuel budget. The only way you can get an improvement on the Oslo-Trondheim travel time and emissions compared with the current situation is however to develop the Østerdalen road.




ElviS77 said:


> The total traffic volume is, as I've said a few times, heavier on 75% of the E6 (the remainder is about the same), most of it even considerably heavier. That makes a difference, no matter which route most of the transit traffic use. I realise that you'd like to see an expressway through Østerdalen, and your arguments are sensible. But there are good arguments supporting the Gudbrandsdalen link as well, and - most importantly - those have been heard. The alternatives are to support a proper E6 and work for a decent rv 3 or to promote idealistic projects that won't be realised. Ever.


It does not seem that we will agree on this, "ever". Of course traffic volumes matter when you decide what road standard you should have, and undoubtly, we will have a motorway to Lillehammer and an upgrade further north in a few years, both measures that have my full support. However, when deciding on what should be the future road network that binds the country together we should select the shortest and most environmental sound alternatives for transit between the main regional centers of Norway, and not follow routes that coincidentally have a lot of traffic already. The latter solution would be equivalent to putting all new highways directly through the city centers, which after all have the heaviest traffic. I think most would agree that is a very backward approach.

For the Oslo - Trondheim corridor it is no doubt that transit road used today by most, and which by far is both the shortest and most enviromently friendly is the rv 3 between Kolomoen and Ulsberg. The proffesionals (trucks and express buses) already uses this route almost exlusively, and whenever the Norwegian government decides that it wants to build a real trunk road network they should follow the truck's lead on this, as well developing Haukeli as the main east/west connection.


----------



## ElviS77

54°26′S 3°24′E;23026536 said:


> Road numbers aren't exactly written in stone, and has been changed several times in the past. Regarding this particular discussion, the issue is publicly discussed quite frequently. If Norway adopted the model of most other countries, where national roads are not decided by local politics but the national road authority with the task of making a trunk way system binding the country together, things could turn out very differently.
> 
> I don't see how changing road numbers would decrease funding, the competition between the two roads is a real issue in any case, and almost led to a breakdown of the road alliance between Hedmark and Oppland.


1. Changing the E6 from Gudbrandsdalen to Østerdalen is not just about changing road numbers, as I suspect you know... 2. Having two competing links has a tendency to result in indecision rather than action, see the Oslo-Bergen debacle. 3. The length of road isn't the only issue in other countries either, and the only ones truly lobbying for a change, are people from Trøndelag. 




54°26′S 3°24′E;23026536 said:


> Check the link, I did not make up the 4-5 times higher claim. The confusion may be caused by different definitions of what heavy traffic is, more than 3.5 t or more than 16 m? (And at night it feels very much like every second car is a truck on rv 3, BTW).


I suggest you check the link a little more carefully yourself, also making a detour onto the 6a route (E6). First, they're stating that the level is 4 to 5 times higher than *certain* other trunk routes - without naming names. When compared to the E6, the difference in >16m vehichles over the mountains is about 2.5-1 (294-117). As suspected. The total HGV traffic in Gudbrandsdalen is at least doble Østerdalen's. According to exactly the same Vegvesen study.



54°26′S 3°24′E;23026536 said:


> I don't understand this. 40 km should take at least 30 minutes alone. In addition, the speed limits are still considerably higher on the rv 3, and the traffic is much more likely to slow you down on the E6, because the traffic is higher, there are fewer passing possibilities and curves and hills slow heavy vehicles down on the E6. I have driven between Oslo and Trondheim far too many times, and in my experience, it is at least one hour difference (OK, it is also a bit more tempting to have a slightly heavy right foot on the rv 3...).
> 
> We are probably talking about minutes of saved time here. Whatever you do,
> the time difference won't be less than 30 minutes, and unless you make a very long tunnel, the trucks will also still use considerable more gas on E6. By digging a couple of much shorter tunnels, it is BTW also possible to make the Kvikne passage of rv 3 even lower.


I'm not going to take this much further, but I find it easy to keep a similar average speed both places: I've tested it several times. And that goes for both fastish stints (typically, 6 hours travel time through Østerdalen) or when taking it slower (7-8 hours). The road quality is par or better (excluding Ringebu-Otta), and the lorries you continuously mention, tend to slow you down just like the Gudbrandsdal traffic. And by the way, if the average speed were to increase from 80 to 90 in Gudbrandsdalen - with a new motorway and 2+1 road, that's a more than likely minimum - and cut 5 kms off the stretch, you'd save 25 mins. And now we're only talking about the approved projects.



54°26′S 3°24′E;23026536 said:


> Another factor is that nobody actually wants the traffic from rv 3 transferred to Gudbrandsdalen, it would create even greater problems there, and as you might know, the E6 passes through a very vulnerable ecosystem across Dovre, and nobody wants to see a doubling of the traffic there.
> 
> Perhaps if you build a continous motorway Oslo- Dombås and expressway Dombås-Ulsberg and at the same time freezes any development in Østerdalen the alternatives can perhaps become similar on a time budget, but not on a fuel budget. The only way you can get an improvement on the Oslo-Trondheim travel time and emissions compared with the current situation is however to develop the Østerdalen road..


See above. The simple point is that noone will move the E6 for the sake of 300 lorries.



54°26′S 3°24′E;23026536 said:


> I does not seem that we will agree on this, "ever". Of course traffic volumes matter when you decide what road standard you should have, and undoubtly, we will have a motorway to Lillehammer and an upgrade further north in a few years, both measures that have my full support. However, when deciding on what should be the future road network that binds the country together we should select the shortest and most environmental sound alternatives for transit between the main regional centers of Norway, and not follow routes that coincidentally have a lot of traffic already. The latter solution would be equivalent to putting all new highways directly through the city centers, which after all have the heaviest traffic. I think most would agree that is a very backward approach.
> 
> For the Oslo - Trondheim corridor it is no doubt that transit road used today by most, and which by far is both the shortest and most enviromently friendly is the rv 3 between Kolomoen and Ulsberg. The proffesionals (trucks and express buses) already uses this route almost exlusively, and whenever the Norwegian government decides that it wants to build a real trunk road network they should follow the truck's lead on this, as well developing Haukeli as the main east/west connection.


If, if, if... No matter what the most roadbuilding friendly lobbies want, it's always sensible to make a reality check. I'm not talking about what might happen if Norway suddenly started to spend three, four or five times more on road building - even then they wouldn't move the "mother road"... - but about the current situation. It's got very little to do with disagreement, really.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

ElviS77 said:


> 1. Changing the E6 from Gudbrandsdalen to Østerdalen is not just about changing road numbers, as I suspect you know... 2. Having two competing links has a tendency to result in indecision rather than action, see the Oslo-Bergen debacle. 3. The length of road isn't the only issue in other countries either, and the only ones truly lobbying for a change, are people from Trøndelag.


It seems now that you actually defend that local politics have a say 

There are already two "competing" links, as they both are trunk (i.e. green) roads, but competing only in terms of money, in traffic. As discussed previously, improvements in Gudbrandsdalen won't be to any benefit for traffic to Hedmark, Trøndelag and further north, conversely, investment in Rv 3 wont be beneficial for Oppland, Møre and south-western Trøndelag. And it is forces in Hedmark as well as the truck drivers that lobby the hardest for rv 3. Trøndelag, Hedmark and Nordland combined is btw far more populous and have more votes in the parliament than Oppland and Møre og Romsdal, if that should matter.



ElviS77 said:


> When compared to the E6, the difference in >16m vehichles over the mountains is about 2.5-1 (294-117). As suspected. The total HGV traffic in Gudbrandsdalen is at least doble Østerdalen's. According to exactly the same Vegvesen study.


Actually, the >16 m numbers in Gudbrandsdalen are around 420, only about 40 % higher, and we both agree that the Gudbrandsdalen as well as the road south of Lillehammer should be upgraded to be able to carry the traffic. About half the trucks across Dovre continues to Rv 70 (to load salmon?, see corridoor 6e). Thus, the fraction between the transit vehicles on Rv 3 and E6 is in fact at least 5-1 as some of the remaining trucks does not originate from Oslo.


ElviS77 said:


> See above. The simple point is that noone will move the E6 for the sake of 300 lorries.


It is certainly not only 300 trucks anymore, the traffic has been increasing dramatically lately, and will continue to increase whatever they call the road.


ElviS77 said:


> I'm not going to take this much further, but I find it easy to keep a similar average speed both places: I've tested it several times. And that goes for both fastish stints (typically, 6 hours travel time through Østerdalen) or when taking it slower (7-8 hours). The road quality is par or better (excluding Ringebu-Otta), and the lorries you continuously mention, tend to slow you down just like the Gudbrandsdal traffic. And by the way, if the average speed were to increase from 80 to 90 in Gudbrandsdalen - with a new motorway and 2+1 road, that's a more than likely minimum - and cut 5 kms off the stretch, you'd save 25 mins. And now we're only talking about the approved projects.


In my experience it is only private cars that slow you down in Østerdalen, trucks usually drive at the speed limit or above, otherwise it is clearly pointless to discuss this issue further




ElviS77 said:


> If, if, if... No matter what the most roadbuilding friendly lobbies want, it's always sensible to make a reality check. I'm not talking about what might happen if Norway suddenly started to spend three, four or five times more on road building - even then they wouldn't move the "mother road"... - but about the current situation. It's got very little to do with disagreement, really.


The reality is that it is quite a few people, parties and organization that lobby for the rv 3, like for many other bad roads in Norway, and lately they seem to have been at least partially successful. What will happen in the decade to come is purely speculations anyway, but I am only trying to point out that the road in Gudbrandsdalen is not, and will never be, the main Oslo-Trondheim road.


----------



## ElviS77

54°26′S 3°24′E;23032784 said:


> It seems now that you actually defend that local politics have a say


No. I'm only saying that the choice has been made.



54°26′S 3°24′E;23032784 said:


> There are already two "competing" links, as they both are trunk (i.e. green) roads, but competing only in terms of money, in traffic. As discussed previously, improvements in Gudbrandsdalen won't be to any benefit for traffic to Hedmark, Trøndelag and further north, conversely, investment in Rv 3 wont be beneficial for Oppland, Møre and south-western Trøndelag. And it is forces in Hedmark as well as the truck drivers that lobby the hardest for rv 3. Trøndelag, Hedmark and Norland combined is btw far more populous than Oppland and Møre og Romsdal, if that should matter..


I know. But they're not both international roads. And the traffic is still way heavier along the E6 corridor, leaving the mountain plateau aside.



54°26′S 3°24′E;23032784 said:


> Actually, the >16 m numbers in Gudbrandsdalen is around 420 in Gudbrandsdalen, only about 40 % higher, and we agree that the Gudbrandsdalen should be upgraded to be able to carry this traffic. About half the trucks across Dovre continues to Rv 70 (to load salmon?, see corridoor 6e). Thus, the fraction between the transit vehicles on Rv 3 and E6 is in fact at least 5-1...


Difference between transit traffic and other traffic isn't all that interesting... The point is simple: Yes, main routes are planned for more than local traffic, but since the Oslo-Trondheim traffic always will remain a marginal part of the traffic load on the link, it's only a part of the equation.



54°26′S 3°24′E;23032784 said:


> It is certainly not only 300 trucks anymore, the traffic has been increasing dramatically lately, and will continue to increase whatever they call the road..


Source? Your link said 294.



54°26′S 3°24′E;23032784 said:


> In my experience it is only private cars that slow you down in Østerdalen, trucks usually drive at the speed limit or above, otherwise it is clearly pointless to discuss this issue further..


Let's use maths instead, then: If you average 80 kph Ulsberg-Tynset, 90 Tynset-Koppang (which, incidently, is no longer allowed) and 80 Koppang-Kolomoen, it'd take approx 3 h 15 mins. If you average 75 kph Ulsberg-Dovre plateau, 90 across the plateau, 70 Dombås-Ringebu, 80 Ringebu-Kolomoen, it'd take about 4 hours. A 45 min difference with current roads and limits, and I haven't excactly favoured the travel speeds in Gudbrandsdalen here...



54°26′S 3°24′E;23032784 said:


> The reality is that it is quite a few people, parties and organization that lobby for the rv 3, like for many other bad roads in Norway, and lately they seem to have been at least partially successful. What will happens in the decade to come is purely speculations, anyway, but discussing the best way forward is always worthwhile.


Since we do know quite a bit about AADTs, approved projects and the road authorities' priorities, it's safe to assume that the rv 3 lobbyists faces an uphill struggle, to say the least. The road might very well be improved, as it should be, but that's not the point here: It'll never be the E6, and I hope the lobbyists stop dreaming about that. The problem the Progress Party and other road lobbyists face, is that they present their dream world instead of ambitious plans that may actually be realised. Thus, they make the job of discrediting even the sensible core of their ideas far easier than necessary.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

ElviS77 said:


> When compared to the E6, the difference in >16m vehichles over the mountains is about 2.5-1 (294-117). As suspected. The total HGV traffic in Gudbrandsdalen is at least doble Østerdalen's. According to exactly the same Vegvesen study.


I have looked further into this, and actually the counting points for Gudbrandsdalen is south of Otta and hence the Måløy road. Most likely the traffic north of Rena is less or similar to what you find on the least trafficated leg (i.e. Kvikne) on the Østerdalen road. Your claim of "at least double the traffic in Gudbrandsdalen as Østerdalen" becomes increasingly mysterious 


ElviS77 said:


> No. I'm only saying that the choice has been made.


Which choise, the road number, and now that "the choice is made" (40 years ago?) it is impossible to change? 



ElviS77 said:


> I know. But they're not both international roads.


You know very well that has no importance in neither practice (facts on the ground) nor theory (admininstrative guidelines) in Norway. Just compare E39, E14 or E10 (according to the numbers all very "important" roads (?), but with long legs of very bady quality, even single lane on E39 and E10) with rv 4, rv 2 (now mostly expressway) or for that matter rv 159 (mostly motorway). And at least 10 % of the trucks on rv 3 are foreign, they have GPS you know....


ElviS77 said:


> Difference between transit traffic and other traffic isn't all that interesting... The point is simple: Yes, main routes are planned for more than local traffic, but since the Oslo-Trondheim traffic always will remain a marginal part of the traffic load on the link, it's only a part of the equation.
> 
> And the traffic is still way heavier along the E6 corridor, leaving the mountain plateau aside.


For people traveling from one point to another the difference between local traffic and other traffic is highly interesting and important. People traveling from one part of the country does not care how much local traffic there is, only to get to their destination as fast and safe as possible. To the contrary, if the road is not up to standard the local traffic is an annoance and hindrance. And that is, after all, why we have trunk roads and not just local roads.

As I have pointed out several times now, the truck traffic is (partly significantly) higher on all points on Rv 3 than on the entire leg between Otta and Ulsberg (that is 147 km of the length, i.e. roughly half the Gudbrandsdal/Dovre road). From Dombås to Ulsberg (roughly 102 km) the total AADT on E6 is similar to what you have at the point of lowest traffic on rv 3 (i.e. Kvikne), and the transit traffic is far from marginal, but dominating on these legs. As pointed out repeatedly, at all points the Oslo-Trondheim transit traffic along rv 3 is massively larger than at E6.





ElviS77 said:


> Source? Your link said 294.


The numbers from the link was from around 2005. Since then the national truck traffic increased by roughly 4.4 % in 2006 and roughly 6 % in 2007, and about 4.4 % so far this year (link)approximately twice the increase seen by passenger vehicles. This adds upp to roughly 15.5 % increase, or roughly 350 vehicles. However, this is probably an underestimation, as the traffic growth in Trøndelag and Hedmark has been much higher than the rest of the country according to the same link. I do not have any exact numbers for rv 3, but I think I heard last winter that the "truck" AADT was already then 400-450.



ElviS77 said:


> Let's use maths instead, then: If you average 80 kph Ulsberg-Tynset, 90 Tynset-Koppang (which, incidently, is no longer allowed) and 80 Koppang-Kolomoen, it'd take approx 3 h 15 mins. If you average 75 kph Ulsberg-Dovre plateau, 90 across the plateau, 70 Dombås-Ringebu, 80 Ringebu-Kolomoen, it'd take about 4 hours. A 45 min difference with current roads and limits, and I haven't excactly favoured the travel speeds in Gudbrandsdalen here...


75 km/h Ulsberg-Dovre (Hjerkinn??) haha. Having no time to check your calculation, I choose to trust my own experience rather math in this particular case...



ElviS77 said:


> Since we do know quite a bit about AADTs, approved projects and the road authorities' priorities, it's safe to assume that the rv 3 lobbyists faces an uphill struggle, to say the least. The road might very well be improved, as it should be, but that's not the point here: It'll never be the E6, and I hope the lobbyists stop dreaming about that. The problem the Progress Party and other road lobbyists face, is that they present their dream world instead of ambitious plans that may actually be realised. Thus, they make the job of discrediting even the sensible core of their ideas far easier than necessary.


I do think almost all people could care less what the road is called, as long as they see an improvement in travel time and safety, although it is a bit odd that the fasted way Trondheim-Oslo is not signposted as such.

Who mentioned the progress party? Actually it is local labor and centrist partyists who are now responsible for bringing rv 3 into the official priority list of Oppland and Hedmark ("lottorekka"), and rv 3 is also represented in the National traffic plan. I have no clue what the position of the right wing progress party is on rv 3 vs E6, probably that they both should be developed to superb standard....


----------



## ElviS77

54°26′S 3°24′E;23037362 said:


> I have looked further into this, and actually the counting points for Gudbrandsdalen is south of Otta and hence the Måløy road. Most likely the traffic north of Rena is less or similar to what you find on the least trafficated leg (i.e. Kvikne) on the Østerdalen road. Your claim of "at least double the traffic in Gudbrandsdalen as Østerdalen" becomes increasingly mysterious


The mystery source is in fact more or less your souce: 
http://www.vegvesen.no/stamvegutredninger/Stamvegrute_6a.pdf 
Page 7. Bottom of page, plus table on that page. Page 10, figure. Plus most of the rest of the 28-page report and the similarly-sized you referred to. Remember, I never said the HGV percentage across the mountains were anything but what you said they were.



54°26′S 3°24′E;23037362 said:


> Which choise, the road number, and now that "the choice is made" (40 years ago?) it is impossible to change?


That choice was made much more than 40 years ago, the rv 50 before it crossed Dovre. Face it, it's there to stay, no matter what you, I or anyone else might think about it. 



54°26′S 3°24′E;23037362 said:


> You know very well that has no importance in neither practice (facts on the ground) nor theory (admininstrative guidelines) in Norway. Just compare E39, E14 or E10 (according to the numbers all very "important" roads (?), but with long legs of very bady quality, even single lane on E39 and E10) with rv 4, rv 2 (now mostly expressway) or for that matter rv 159 (mostly motorway). And at least 10 % of the trucks on rv 3 are foreign, they have GPS you know....


Yes. So? The E6 is in a class of its own in the Norwegian psyché; we even refused to renumber it some ten years ago, remember? 



54°26′S 3°24′E;23037362 said:


> For people traveling from one point to another the difference between local traffic and other traffic is highly interesting and important. People traveling from one part of the country does not care how much local traffic there is, only to get to their destination as fast and safe as possible. To the contrary, if the road is not up to standard the local traffic is an annoance and hindrance. And that is, after all, why we have trunk roads and not just local roads.


Yes, but then one might say that since the E6 is the main link between southern Sweden and Kirkenes, it should go through Sweden and Finland... The point is, one needs to be realistic in this respect as well. Besides, a trunk road needs to do more than just carry long-range national and/or international traffic, its interregional functions and in many cases its regional and even local role, is vital. 

Some examples: 
1. As a part of a trans-European road network, it would make more sense for the E18 to be rerouted along the current rv 23, particularly when the 4-lane section near Drammen is finished. It won't happen, even though the 23 is shorter, because the E18's role as the western (and, to a lesser extent, eastern) route into Oslo is considered far more important. 
2. As mentioned earlier, the debate is on whether a new E16 link towards Sweden should run through Oslo (along the excisting E6 and E18) or use a shorter, northern alignment along the current rv 35 to Gardermoen. If the only concern was distance, the choice would be simple. But in reality, the E16 will only be routed to the north with the Hønefoss-Sandvika section as an "arm" of the E16 - it's simply too important not to be a part of that road.
3. In Denmark, the E45 motorway between Aalborg and Vejle is about 10 kms longer than the national route 13. The motorway was completed in the 90s (they started building bits of it the 70s, I believe), but even before the completion, the E45 (earlier E3) was found in that corridor, even though it was considerably faster to use the 13. Why? Because of Århus, plus the ferry links to Sjælland.

I don't know whether there were massive debates about the motorway's alignment in Denmark. Nevertheless, it ended where it did because then, it would perform as many of the wanted tasks as possible in a sensible way, not one or two of them perfectly. 

Translated to the E6/rv3 debate: The Southern Norway main north-south link should a) link Oslo and Trondheim/Trøndelag b) link Gjøvik, Hamar and Lillehammer to Oslo c) link Gudbrandsdalen and its tourist resorts with Oslo d) link Sogn og Fjordane and Oslo e) link Møre og Romsdal and Oslo f) link Hedmark and Oslo. The E6 fulfills requirement a, b except Gjøvik in a good way, c, d, e and partly f. The rv 3 fulfills a, partly b and f. 



54°26′S 3°24′E;23037362 said:


> As I have pointed out several times now, the truck traffic is (partly significantly) higher on all points on Rv 3 than on the entire leg between Otta and Ulsberg (that is 147 km of the length, i.e. roughly half the Gudbrandsdal/Dovre road).


From the table on p 7: Otta sør: 426 >16. Considerably more than 132 HGVs take the rv 15? I think not.



54°26′S 3°24′E;23037362 said:


> From Dombås to Ulsberg (roughly 102 km) the total AADT on E6 is similar to what you have at the point of lowest traffic on rv 3 (i.e. Kvikne), and the transit traffic is far from marginal, but dominating on these legs. As pointed out repeatedly, at all points the Oslo-Trondheim transit traffic along rv 3 is massively larger than at E6.


Haven't disputed the fact that most of the Oslo-Trondheim traffic uses the rv 3, I've said that it isn't all that important.



54°26′S 3°24′E;23037362 said:


> 75 km/h Ulsberg-Dovre (Hjerkinn??) haha.


Yes, 80 would be more precise given the 90 kph stretch south of Oppdal, but since you'll need to navigate a few 60 and 70 zones plus Oppdal itself, 75 is more precise for the legal-minded driver... I could have divided the stretches further, I could have clocked a less-legal-minded approach, but it doesn't really matter. Reality is an approx 30-min difference. Bored (other) readers, trust me on this...



54°26′S 3°24′E;23037362 said:


> Having no time to check your calculation, I choose to trust my own experience rather math in this particular case...


It's always a wise choice to reject reality when one's own is wrong... Simply put, the stretch is too short to make an 1-hour impact when the roads aren't that dissimilar. 



54°26′S 3°24′E;23037362 said:


> Who mentioned the progress party?


I did, because a motorway through Østerdalen is their wet dream. 



54°26′S 3°24′E;23037362 said:


> Actually it is local labor and centrist partyists who are now responsible for bringing rv 3 into the official priority list of Oppland and Hedmark ("lottorekka"), and rv 3 is also represented in the National traffic plan.


I know. But afaik, noone there has officially suggested to replace Gudbrandsdalen with Østernalen as the main (read E6) artery - those who do are dreamers - nor has anyone demanded to revisit the plans to improve the E6 significantly. The serious rv 3 plans are to widen the current road into an 8.5-metre road. With both in place, the difference in travel time would be much smaller.


----------



## berlinwroclaw

*Motorway E18 Mysen - Spydeberg*

19 July 2008 I passed motorway E18, section Mysen - Spydeberg. This section is part of the connection Stockholm-Oslo. My first impression entering Norway was a bad one. I had the opinion the Swedish part was better. After entering the motorway E18, I changed my opinion. Construction is going on to complete the whole road from Oslo to the Swedish border to motorway parameters. I could not find any indication of road construction on the Swedish side. 









Distance table Oslo 61 km









Interchange road 128









Toll station Spydeberg


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

Sorry pal, but I feel I finally start to lose interest in this discussion, I assume others have to, if we ever had any followers. Well, what the heck, I can't leave it like this.....


ElviS77 said:


> The mystery source is in fact more or less your souce:
> http://www.vegvesen.no/stamvegutredninger/Stamvegrute_6a.pdf
> Page 7. Bottom of page, plus table on that page. Page 10, figure. Plus most of the rest of the 28-page report and the similarly-sized you referred to. Remember, I never said the HGV percentage across the mountains were anything but what you said they were.


Maybe I misunderstood your claim. I thought we were talking about >16 m vehicles (i.e. "20-tonners"), but I think you might be talking about all vehicles above 3.5 t or 5.5 m (i.e. vans and RVs included)??? Otherwise I do not understand what you are referring to here, be more specific please. 


ElviS77 said:


> That choice was made much more than 40 years ago, the rv 50 before it crossed Dovre. Face it, it's there to stay, no matter what you, I or anyone else might think about it.
> 
> Yes. So? The E6 is in a class of its own in the Norwegian psyché; we even refused to renumber it some ten years ago, remember?


Possibly these are the lamest argument in this discussion so far, at least from you  Sure, Dovre has historically been the most important land based north-south route for more than a millennium, Østerdalen was simply to dangerous strainous due to the lack of farms and abundance of wild animals, and the Dovre mountain will always be a symbol of our nation, but why the heck should we plan our future road network on this? Personally I am not that nostalgic, and I actually think it was a big mistake of us to clinch to the E6 back a decade or so ago, as we no longer can follow the road all the way to Rome...






ElviS77 said:


> Yes, but then one might say that since the E6 is the main link between southern Sweden and Kirkenes, it should go through Sweden and Finland...


Yes, why not? Making continous road numbers along routes where people actually drive (or should have driven to get there ASAP) is a good idea IMO.

[EDIT: I forgot last night, but actually this link exists already, the E45 goes through Italy, via Gothenburg and western/central Sweden (Östersund) and continues to the Finnish/Swedish border fairly close to Norway. Except that it does not go all the way up to Kirkenes, it has more or less taken over the role of the old (long) E6 at a European basis, connecting Sicily with far northern Scandinavia, but using a much straighter route through Scandinavia than the E6. Thus our insistense on keeping the E6 number gave the Swedes a road on the reference grid, wheres we are left with European routes just on the intermediate grid, except the far northern E10 east-west connection (the one lane road...). The E6 has become one of the oddities of the system, if international status of the road mean anything for you.....]




ElviS77 said:


> The point is, one needs to be realistic in this respect as well. Besides, a trunk road needs to do more than just carry long-range national and/or international traffic, its interregional functions and in many cases its regional and even local role, is vital.
> 
> Some examples:
> 1. As a part of a trans-European road network, it would make more sense for the E18 to be rerouted along the current rv 23, particularly when the 4-lane section near Drammen is finished. It won't happen, even though the 23 is shorter, because the E18's role as the western (and, to a lesser extent, eastern) route into Oslo is considered far more important.
> 2. As mentioned earlier, the debate is on whether a new E16 link towards Sweden should run through Oslo (along the excisting E6 and E18) or use a shorter, northern alignment along the current rv 35 to Gardermoen. If the only concern was distance, the choice would be simple. But in reality, the E16 will only be routed to the north with the Hønefoss-Sandvika section as an "arm" of the E16 - it's simply too important not to be a part of that road.
> 3. In Denmark, the E45 motorway between Aalborg and Vejle is about 10 kms longer than the national route 13. The motorway was completed in the 90s (they started building bits of it the 70s, I believe), but even before the completion, the E45 (earlier E3) was found in that corridor, even though it was considerably faster to use the 13. Why? Because of Århus, plus the ferry links to Sjælland.
> I don't know whether there were massive debates about the motorway's alignment in Denmark. Nevertheless, it ended where it did because then, it would perform as many of the wanted tasks as possible in a sensible way, not one or two of them perfectly.


I fail to see why this is relevant. Hamar isn't exactly Oslo, and Lillehammer isn't exactly Århus, many cities of it size do not have a E-road at all, and both cities would be connected by E-136 if E6 is rerouted.


ElviS77 said:


> Translated to the E6/rv3 debate: The Southern Norway main north-south link should a) link Oslo and Trondheim/Trøndelag b) link Gjøvik, Hamar and Lillehammer to Oslo c) link Gudbrandsdalen and its tourist resorts with Oslo d) link Sogn og Fjordane and Oslo e) link Møre og Romsdal and Oslo f) link Hedmark and Oslo.
> 
> The E6 fulfills requirement a, b except Gjøvik in a good way, c, d, e and partly f. The rv 3 fulfills a, partly b and f.


No, as I have repeated again and again: The E6 does not link up, and will never link up Trondheim and Oslo, neither does it link up Gjøvik (that would be Rv 4). E6 fulfills only c), partly b) and f) (with the exception of Gjøvik and northern/eastern Hedmark), and with help from E136 and the other western roads d) and e), rv 3 fulfills a), partly b) (Hamar) and f). My point is, that your imaginative requirements for the main south-north road link of Norway is impossible to fulfill for a single road, and the longest road serving the largest part of the country (i.e. rv 3) should have the primary E-number, and as minimum rv 3 should be the signposted road to Trondheim.



ElviS77 said:


> From the table on p 7: Otta sør: 426 >16. Considerably more than 132 HGVs take the rv 15? I think not.


I said the heavy truck traffic was similar between Otta and Dombås. 190 takes E136. A few of those orignates from the north 120, so the total number is a little but less than 120+190=310, its fairly realistic. Remember that the rv 15 road also covers southern Møre og Romsdal, and the area has quite a lot of metal, furniture, oil, aquaculture and fishing industry.



ElviS77 said:


> Haven't disputed the fact that most of the Oslo-Trondheim traffic uses the rv 3, I've said that it isn't all that important.


Because the current E6 has higher local traffic for approximately half its length? Of course this should be reflected in the road standards, otherwise I simply fail to follow your argument.


ElviS77 said:


> Yes, 80 would be more precise given the 90 kph stretch south of Oppdal, but since you'll need to navigate a few 60 and 70 zones plus Oppdal itself, 75 is more precise for the legal-minded driver... I could have divided the stretches further, I could have clocked a less-legal-minded approach, but it doesn't really matter. Reality is an approx 30-min difference. Bored (other) readers, trust me on this...


I said haha because 75 km/h was unrealistically high on this road, as most of the leg has reduced speed limits, and I hardly believe we have any readers left....
[edit: btw: In case you have not noticed it on your "regular trips", the 90 zone across the Dovre mountains are also permanently gone now, since last fall. I do not understand the downwriting from 90 to 80 neither at the Dovre pass nor Østerdalen. Neither the trucks nor reckless drivers will pose any less danger because of this]


ElviS77 said:


> It's always a wise choice to reject reality when one's own is wrong... Simply put, the stretch is too short to make an 1-hour impact when the roads aren't that dissimilar.


Starting to run out of arguments since you start to get personal? Just because I do not buy your sketch calculations does not exactly put me out of touch with reality. 

As I said, 30 minutes is only for the length difference, then you have to add for all the other hassles with E6, including all the reduced speed zones. With an improved road this could be changed, but not much below 30 minutes. I have driven both roads zillion times, and know this, but in any case 30 minutes or 60 minutes does not change our basic discussion. 

If you are really eager, you are welcome to perform a detailed study using the "viskart" engine, but you still have to add some minutes to Gudbrandsdalen due to the traffic slow down discussed in previous posts. 

[edit: Alternatively, you could be lazy as me and use www.visveg.no, the road authorities online road guide, it says Østerdalen (rv 3) is 40 minutes shorter than Gudbrandsdalen (E6) (quite close to your estimate, actually), BUT pressumably calculated on the basis of speed limits and not including the traffic issues, so in total you will in practice end up at about one hour, not 30 minutes difference. (I am usually able to drive rv 3 about 1 hour faster than visveg withouth excessive speeding, though, I think they must have included some pit stops.) The conclusion stands, even with heavy investments, Gudbrandsdalen cannot compete with rv 3 on the Oslo-Trondheim link]



ElviS77 said:


> I did, because a motorway through Østerdalen is their wet dream.


Actually, I read a center-party guy also suggest this, afaik, the Progress party has only said they want to build motorway Trondheim - Oslo, not specifying where.


ElviS77 said:


> I know. But afaik, noone there has officially suggested to replace Gudbrandsdalen with Østernalen as the main (read E6) artery - those who do are dreamers - nor has anyone demanded to revisit the plans to improve the E6 significantly. The serious rv 3 plans are to widen the current road into an 8.5-metre road. With both in place, the difference in travel time would be much smaller.


1. It does not matter how many times you repeat that the current E6 is the main north-south artery when it is not true except perhaps in the (E6) name only, a fact that most people that travel to Trondheim know and vegvesenet aknowledges. E6 is perhaps the main north-west distributor, but an artery should pump some fresh blood from the heart to the head from time to time, and not only to its shoulder, don't you think (replace either Oslo or Trondheim with the heart or head as you please...). (See zillion arguments for this above)
2. That Gudbrandsdalen should be improved, is no argument for not improving rv 3 which serves a completely different market. So far, only the tollroad project Tingberg-Tretten is in the national transport plan regarding Gudbrandsdalen.
3. There are concrete plans for extending the expressway on rv 3 to north of Elverum with another toll road, a plan which now has local backing. The common leg with rv 25 will be four lanes. Also in other places there are plans to remove trouble spots, and this is part of the Hedmark/Oppland road compromize. In short, I do not see the relation between the two roads in terms of "market shares" change any time soon, but in both places, investments really has to increase from the current level.
4. Improving rv 3 is the only way of shortening the north-south travel distance, as well as saving lives on this very dangerous road, and probably reducing the need for the current millions of air travels per year between the two cities.
5. In order to really save time, Ulsberg-Trondheim really needs a makeover, however it will be more complicated and expensive than rv 3. So far, little have been done, although the traffic is quiet high in Norwegian terms and there are no competing routes on this last leg.

[Edit:
Some maps (from wikipedia):
The e45:








The E6 (notice the kink)








(Notice the kink in Southern Norway)

And just so that other people than a certain Leksviking should have a chance to understand what we are talking about, here is a
map of alternative Trondheim routes, with rv 3 painted in blue and E6 in yellow where these split:








]



Seriously, I think I am logging off this discussion now, I can't think of anything that has not been said already several times.


----------



## Þróndeimr

^^ Been reading through most of it, wanted to do a reply, but everything have been said so far i think! And not that it made much of an conclusion either! 

Nice pics berlinwroclaw, hope you enjoyed your trip. E18 looks like a dream to drive on compared to what we have up here. 

But i drove the new E6 south of Steinkjer yesterday, a dream to drive on, but please, give it some 90 signs!, as goes for Dovre and Østerdalen as well. Drove Østerdalen three weeks back, and traffic were really slow compared to last autumn when i also drove Østerdalen down and up. Took me 45min extra this time due to longer lines of slower traffic. Reminded me too much about Gudbrandsdalen. But of course, i mught just have been unlucky on timing.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

Yes, Østfold is finally getting a decent road network, its about time, the E6 used to be a two-lane country road that made tight turns along farm property lines just a few decades ago. Hopefully we will see some investment on the other main links of the country as well in the decades to come.

Ironically high summer traffic (pressumably created by city dwellers from Oslo (like my self) or Trondheim) would be a good thing for rv 3, as it will open the eyes of decision makers for the need for investments here. The real dangerous periods of this road is however at less trafficated periods (by private cars) during night and outside the vacation periods, when the the trucks are dominating but some people (often it seems like most) are really speeding recklessly, and winter, when many trucks are not equipped for this rather narrow winter road. Of course, the daily use is also by far most important in the economic sense for this road.


----------



## berlinwroclaw

*Motorway Constructions E6, Section Hamar – Oslo – Svinesund (Border N/S)*



Þróndeimr said:


> Nice pics berlinwroclaw, hope you enjoyed your trip. E18 looks like a dream to drive on compared to what we have up here. .


Thank you, it is really nice to be in Norway. When motorway construction will continue, the way I saw last visit, one day your dream will come true 

Here my report about Motorway E6 constructions, section Hamer – Oslo – Svinesund (Border N/S). Positive is that within a few years the whole section will be a motorway. But why had to take it so long in this rich oil country? Oslo is one of the last European economical areas without motorway connection to the rest of Europe. Anyhow: the soon-completed motorway will certainly stimulate foreigners like me to visit Norway again. Here are the photos taken on 21 July 2008:









Start of motorway construction near Sørli 









Distance table Oslo 107 km









Interchange Road 222 Tangen









Distance table Oslo 100 km









Existing motorway near Gardermoen airport with typical Swedish “egg-cutter” rails. 









Tunnel construction on Motorway Ring Oslo









Just completed motorway section south of Olso. Note the West European safety rails as replacement of unsafe Swedish “egg-cutter” rails.

More info: (Norwegian language)
http://www.vegvesen.no/cs/Satellite...=true&pagename=VPE6GardermoenBiri/Page/VPside


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

^^ Thanks for the pics, berlinwroclaw. As you can see from the discussion above you can be glad that you did not venture further north than Kolomoen south of Hamar, as the way northwards is a veritable mine field....

Seriously, I think you will be very dissapointed if you come back in a few years and expect everything has changed. At least there is very little in the current proposal for the next transport plan, except finishing the projects that already has started (i.e. the sections you have shown here plus 40 km or so in Agder in far southern Norway and a little bit in Vestfold southwest of Oslo). Even in a 30 year perspective, this is all what the road authorities envisage:








Motorway=red, motorway "on the cheap", i.e. 19 m: yellow. Unfortunately, this will take 50 years to complete with the current funding, and still none of our 4 biggest cities will be connected with each other...

It is quite strange to see countries like poor Namibia boasting their motorways network here, while ours still is so incomplete, but it is all about priorities. There were some grand plans in the 50s and 60s, but the government decided that other areas were more important for the economy. Worse however, is that only one party really (which IMO is quite irresponsible in most other areas) says they are going to do something with the situation in the years to come. 


ElviS77 said:


> TYes. So? The E6 is in a class of its own in the Norwegian psyché;


OK, I could not resist, was it something like this you had in mind? E6, DDE:
Song 
Lyrics and even ringtone....

(Sorry foreigners, this song is probably completely meaningless for you, but it is about a truck driver going nonstop from Hamburg to Bodø in Northern Norway to get to his newborn baby, by one of the tackiest bands of Norway, proud product of Namsos, Trøndelag. Safe or legal driving is obviously not an issue, the trip is more than 2300 km....)

But you see, they sing that E6 is "den strakaste vegen" (the straightest way), so the national character won't be broken if they iron out the Dombås wrinkle.....


----------



## Dan

berlinwroclaw said:


> 19 July 2008 I passed motorway E18, section Mysen - Spydeberg. This section is part of the connection Stockholm-Oslo. My first impression entering Norway was a bad one. I had the opinion the Swedish part was better. After entering the motorway E18, I changed my opinion. Construction is going on to complete the whole road from Oslo to the Swedish border to motorway parameters. I could not find any indication of road construction on the Swedish side.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Distance table Oslo 61 km
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interchange road 128
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toll station Spydeberg


Only part of the E18 Oslo-border is going to be upgraded to motorway.  Others are being upgraded (and have been) but not to motorway (there is one stretch that was made less windy and is 80 km/h, right near the motorway stretch that opened last year). On the Swedish side there is some construction going on: 2+1 for a few km right after the border opening later this year; a few km of motorway to the east of Karlstad opening in September; 15+ km of motorway west of Örebro opening this fall; and a few km near Västerås opening this fall, with another stretch near Västerås opening in 2010. Those are the ones going on right now anyway.


----------



## Timoth12

Great stuff, I´d love to drive Norvegian highways and roads.


----------



## berlinwroclaw

54°26′S 3°24′E;23123436 said:


> ^^ Thanks for the pics, berlinwroclaw. As you can see from the discussion above you can be glad that you did not venture further north than Kolomoen south of Hamar, as the way northwards is a veritable mine field....


Thanks! I continued the E6 to the north, all the way till Otta. 









E6 is 2x1 or 2+1 road with viaducts till north of Lillehammer









End of 2+1 road with viaducts

After Lillehammer the viaducts and 2+1 parts disappeared, but the lanes were much about the same. Some parts were narrower than on the photos, but it were only short sections. 









E6 at 29 km south of Otta

After Otta I went to Norway’s tourist nr 1 attraction: Geiranger fjord. Near the Geiranger fjord I had true challenges on a small road with an altitude difference of more than 1000 m.









Exit to road 63 to Geiranger



54°26′S 3°24′E;23123436 said:


> still none of our 4 biggest cities will be connected with each other...


In my opinion Stavanger, Bergen and Trondheim should be connected by motorway with the motorway network in Oslo within 10 years.



54°26′S 3°24′E;23123436 said:


> Seriously, I think you will be very dissapointed if you come back in a few years and expect everything has changed. At least there is very little in the current proposal for the next transport plan, except finishing the projects that already has started (i.e. the sections you have shown here plus 40 km or so in Agder in far southern Norway and a little bit in Vestfold southwest of Oslo). Even in a 30 year perspective, this is all what the road authorities envisage:


Infrastructure constructions are not only initated by 30 years perspectives, but also by requests of transport, industry, safety organisations, etc. With a fast growing economy and growing number of tourists and sufficient resources I see enough possiblities. E.g. by starting a lobby with transport organisations or local governments.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

berlinwroclaw said:


> After Otta I went to Norway’s tourist nr 1 attraction: Geiranger fjord. Near the Geiranger fjord I had true challenges on a small road with an altitude difference of more than 1000 m.


This is among the more spectacular areas in Southern Norway, with quite a few such roads. I hope you had a nice trip!


berlinwroclaw said:


> In my opinion Stavanger, Bergen and Trondheim should be connected by motorway with the motorway network in Oslo within 10 years.


That won't happen, I am afraid, even the most enthusiastic campaigners are calling for a network in a 20 years perspective. First the politicians have to agree to actually go for it. Then there would probably be a lot of debate about routes etc. in good old Norwegian tradition.. And given the topography of Norway, some of the projects will be quite challenging and requires long planning and building periods. I guess it is doable in 10 years only of they start constructing everywhere at once. This will require a large influx of foreign entrepeneurs, which may actually make some of the projects more expensive since Norwegian firms seem to be in a class of its own when it comes to tunnel drilling.



berlinwroclaw said:


> Infrastructure constructions are not only initated by 30 years perspectives, but also by requests of transport, industry, safety organisations, etc. With a fast growing economy and growing number of tourists and sufficient resources I see enough possiblities. E.g. by starting a lobby with transport organisations or local governments.


True, and this is of course also happening. The problem is that there are so many counterforces. However, things may improve a little after the national elections in a year.

BTW: A Norwegian infrastructure debate exploded on the Scandinavian forums recently (they are in English).


----------



## Þróndeimr

*New E6 between Trondheim and Stjørdal will cost a billion NOK more than estimated.*
E6 Øst vil koste én milliard ekstra >> Adressa.no article (in Norwegian)

New estimates reveal that the new E6 will cost around 3.5 billion NOK, not 2.425 billion NOK as originally estimated.

685 million NOK will be payed by the state, while 2.8 billion NOK will have to be payed in toll-stations.

Most of the E6 is already completed, its just the 5km in Stjørdal and 4.5km from downtown Trondheim and out to Grilstad which have to be done.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

So, that's like a hundred million euro's extra for 9.5 kilometers?


----------



## Þróndeimr

Chriszwolle said:


> So, that's like a hundred million euro's extra for 9.5 kilometers?


Yes, 125 million Euros more to be exact. Stjørdal-Trondheim E6 is more or less completed (40km long), exept from the 4.5km in Trondheim and 5km in Stjørdal.

Its the 4.5km in Trondheim which will be most expencive, 2.7 billion NOK (335 million Euros) for 4.5km of road. It will be 2x2 lane road though.










Problem in Trondheim is that they will have to build a pretty expencive tunnel (2.4km long). First they have to move several (10-20 buildings) large wooden houses which is 100-150 years old and preserved. Then they have to remove a lot of quick clay which is extremly unstabile and dangerous and make the tunnel through it. And its not easy when its going to be a 2x2 lane road.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

Þróndeimr said:


> Yes, 125 million Euros more to be exact. Stjørdal-Trondheim E6 is more or less completed (40km long), exept from the 4.5km in Trondheim and 5km in Stjørdal.


"Completed", yes, but with an already outdated standard since it was built in the 80s/90s. The E6 between Trondheim and Stjørdal carries an ADT around 15 000. I am not sure when data is from, which is significant since the road according to the article has increased with a whopping 20 % the last 2.5 years. This road should be a 4-lane motorway the whole way according to the Norwegian standards, not the 2/3-lane, partially divided road we see today. If the current traffic growth continues, the road will have a traffic of 36 000 AADT in 15 years when the end legs are paid down.... 

I am not sure what Trøndelag does to deserve so little infrastructure money from the central government.

At the eastern end of the 2.4 km tunnel in the Trondheim project to start next year, there will btw also be a quite complex intersection. As far as I have understood, it will be three levels, with two of the levels (the road leading to the current E6, which will become a PT route only, and the new e6) underground. Thus, this road is a little bit more complex than an average countryside motorway....


----------



## Ingenioren

Here's a map i made from gulesiders map, showing road conditions in the Oslo area, red are motorways, yellow is 4 lane expressroads, orange is motorway under construction and purple are 2 lane expressroads.


----------



## ElviS77

54°26′S 3°24′E;23123436 said:


> But you see, they sing that E6 is "den strakaste vegen" (the straightest way), so the national character won't be broken if they iron out the Dombås wrinkle.....


As you hopefully realised, I was sick to effing death of the continued deterioration of our "debate" and couldn't be bothered to continue. A few days on, however, a brief summary:

1. 54°26′S 3°24′E;23123436 insists that the rv 3 should be the E6 in the future, because it's about 40 kms shorter than the current alignment. I say that it will never happen, because total traffic volumes, history and population density easily trumps distance and travel time for a tiny minority of the road's users. For those of you with a particular interest in AADT figures, look at the maps and tables in the aforementioned links. They're understandable even for non-Norwegian speakers (I suggest you compare places on a similar latitude, for instance Lillehammer vs Rena or Otta vs Hanestad (Hanekampen, Rendal kommune...)
2. 54°26′S 3°24′E;23123436 insists that the difference in travel time Oslo-Trondheim is more than 1 hour, without providing a shred of evidence to support this (actually, the only evidence provided supports my viewpoint of a 30-40 min difference...). My claim is that the difference is about 30 minutes (supported by logic and maths...) and I also say that when taking APPROVED projects in both corridors into consideration, this will be reduced by 15-25 mins along the E6 (motorway along Mjøsa plus 2+1 with a guardrail in Gudbrandsdalen) - the insinuation being that more motorists would use a safer and quicker E6. 

That's where things stand. We're not going to agree, even though my main point never has been to "agree", but to point out the futility of the "E6 in Østerdalen" idea. 54°26′S 3°24′E;23123436 is not going to agree with me on this either, but I don't really care. This is rather boring stuff, and I'm not going to take it further. My next entry will be regarding the E134, and since there are high-flying ideas regarding this road as well, you never know what might happen...


----------



## ElviS77

Ingenioren said:


> Here's a map i made from gulesiders map, showing road conditions in the Oslo area, red are motorways, yellow is 4 lane expressroads, orange is motorway under construction and purple are 2 lane expressroads.


? The darker red are most certainly not motorways, and at least a few of the yellow roads are 2-, not 4-lane.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

ElviS77 said:


> As you hopefully realised, I was sick to effing death of the continued deterioration of our "debate" and couldn't be bothered to continue.


Understandable, but why the need to misrepresent my arguments?



ElviS77 said:


> A few days on, however, a brief summary:
> 
> 1. 54°26′S 3°24′E;23123436 insists that the rv 3 should be the E6 in the future, because it's about 40 kms shorter than the current alignment. I say that it will never happen, because total traffic volumes, history and population density easily trumps distance and travel time for a tiny minority of the road's users. For those of you with a particular interest in AADT figures, look at the maps and tables in the aforementioned links. They're understandable even for non-Norwegian speakers (I suggest you compare places on a similar latitude, for instance Lillehammer vs Rena or Otta vs Hanestad (Hanekampen, Rendal kommune...)


What it seems we disagree on is whether E6 should be the road connecting the southern and northern regions of Norway together, or a road serving the local traffic around Lillehammer and Hamar. 

Although the transit traffic in AADT is relatively modest, the heavy traffic is quite high, and with an improved link, the passanger traffic will undoubtly also increase. Remember that TRD currently has 4 M pax, with most of the traffic directed towards Oslo. With improvement of the road connection Trondheim-Oslo to European level (whenever that happens) driving times of 450/120<4 hours should be possible, making the car a viable alternative for more people.

Although it is really it beside the point on my part: I have never argued that the E6 in parts (roughly 50%) mostly has higher traffic, but you are tweeking the facts when you argue that Lillehammer and Rena are similar points on the route. The distance from Ulsberg-Lillehammer (260 km) is as far as Ulsberg-Elverum. South of both cities the traffic is around 15 000 AADT. 
The distance Ulsberg-Rena (4200 AADT) is 230 km, roughly corresponding in length to Ulsberg-Tretten (6000 AADT). Ulsberg-Hanestad (around 2000 AADT), Hanestad "coincidentally" being one of the least trafficated parts of rv 3, corresponds in length to Ulsberg-Sel (3700 AADT). A few tens of km further to the north, however, the traffic on E6 and rv 3 is similar, except that the latter has many times as high truck and transit traffic, wheras regional, local and regional traffic dominates E6.




ElviS77 said:


> 2. 54°26′S 3°24′E;23123436 insists that the difference in travel time Oslo-Trondheim is more than 1 hour, without providing a shred of evidence to support this (actually, the only evidence provided supports my viewpoint of a 30-40 min difference...). My claim is that the difference is about 30 minutes (supported by logic and maths...) and I also say that when taking


Your own calculations said 44 minutes, and Visveg said 41 minutes, both based on speed limits alone. We both agree that the E6 partly has heavier traffic, particularly during the summer the slow moving RV and mobile home traffic can be very annoying, and due to all the curves there are fewer passing possibities. Hence, the actual delay experienced by both me and the transit truck drivers is not exactly taken from thin air. Where you get your 30 minutes from remains to be explaned. 

As far as I have understood, speed cameras measuring speed during a distance will be introduced on E6. Since most people then propably will drive well below the speed limit, further delays are to be expected in Gudbrandsdalen.


ElviS77 said:


> APPROVED projects in both corridors into consideration, this will be reduced by 15-25 mins along the E6 (motorway along Mjøsa plus 2+1 with a guardrail in Gudbrandsdalen) - the insinuation being that more motorists would use a safer and quicker E6.


This is simply wrong. According to the current proposal of the new national transport plan, the only thing that will be built in Gudbrandsdalen within 2019 is Tingberg-Tretten. In the same plan, also the considerably longer Løten-Elverum is in on rv 3. In addition there will be smaller enhancements on that route. Your 15-25 minutes is only in a dream world, so far. In the longer run, there are at least as many possibilities to shorten the current rv 3 as E6. In any case it will take a long time and much money before E6 is competetive with rv 3 Oslo-Trondheim, there is 1 hour (or 30 minutes, as you insist) time lag, and the truck drivers will never choose the current E6 due to all the hills, they cannot drive at full motorway speed anyway. 

Further, and more important for me: Thinking a few decades ahead, E6 along Gudbrandsdalenb can never be a full standard route without serious environmental implications, both in the valley itself, where a motorway will be quite ugly, and across the mountains, where there are issues like threatened reindeers etc. Whatever you do, Gudbrandsdalen is also doomed to have more curves, ups and downs compared with the alternative. In Østerdalen, building a proper road will both be significantly cheaper and more environmently friendly.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

Ingenioren said:


> Here's a map i made from gulesiders map, showing road conditions in the Oslo area, red are motorways, yellow is 4 lane expressroads, orange is motorway under construction and purple are 2 lane expressroads.


Thanks for the map.



ElviS77 said:


> ? The darker red are most certainly not motorways, and at least a few of the yellow roads are 2-, not 4-lane.


Note that there is a difference between yellow and orange, and light red and dark red (purple)


----------



## Þróndeimr

54°26′S 3°24′E;23343608 said:


> "Completed", yes, but with an already outdated standard since it was built in the 80s/90s. The E6 between Trondheim and Stjørdal carries an ADT around 15 000. I am not sure when data is from, which is significant since the road according to the article has increased with a whopping 20 % the last 2.5 years. This road should be a 4-lane motorway the whole way according to the Norwegian standards, not the 2/3-lane, partially divided road we see today. If the current traffic growth continues, the road will have a traffic of 36 000 AADT in 15 years when the end legs are paid down....
> 
> I am not sure what Trøndelag does to deserve so little infrastructure money from the central government.
> 
> At the eastern end of the 2.4 km tunnel in the Trondheim project to start next year, there will btw also be a quite complex intersection. As far as I have understood, it will be three levels, with two of the levels (the road leading to the current E6, which will become a PT route only, and the new e6) underground. Thus, this road is a little bit more complex than an average countryside motorway....


True, that road is congested, esp. in the last two years as the article sais. And most of the road is just 2 lanes, with just a few km's with 1+2 or 2+2. Be prepared to drive 70km/h most of the road (especially in the tunnels - 1/3 of the road is tunnels) if you drive it during the day.


----------



## ElviS77

54°26′S 3°24′E;23349534 said:


> Understandable, but why the need to misrepresent my arguments?


Which has never happened. No need to get nasty.



54°26′S 3°24′E;23349534 said:


> What it seems we disagree on is whether E6 should be the road connecting the southern and northern regions of Norway together, or a road serving the local traffic around Lillehammer and Hamar..


No. You disagree with the official view on where the E6 should be. I only provide the reasons why your viewpoint won't become reality. I don't care either way.



54°26′S 3°24′E;23349534 said:


> Although it is really it beside the point on my part: I have never argued that the E6 in parts (roughly 50%) mostly has higher traffic,.


This is something that truly ticks me off, the way you misrepresent facts. Look at the AADT map: The E6 just dips below 3500 north of Otta whereas the rv 3 does the same north of Rena. Considerable difference, don't you think? And as long as you exclude the Dovre plateau where the total AADT is slightly higher than the Kvikne, slightly lower than Østerdalen north of Koppag. Again: Check the tables.



54°26′S 3°24′E;23349534 said:


> but you are tweeking the facts when you argue that Lillehammer and Rena are similar points on the route. The distance from Ulsberg-Lillehammer (260 km) is as far as Ulsberg-Elverum. South of both cities the traffic is around 15 000 AADT..


Read my post again. Latitude. Since we both agree that the road through Østerdalen is some 40 kms shorter than Gudbrandsdalen, I think it's a reasonable way of evaluating things. And: Kolomoen-Lillehammer is 80 kms, some 24% of the total 330 kms. Kolomoen-Rena 62 kms, some 21% of the 290 kms. If you really want, we could compare Vingrom with Rena instead...



54°26′S 3°24′E;23349534 said:


> The distance Ulsberg-Rena (4200 AADT) is 230 km, roughly corresponding in length to Ulsberg-Tretten (6000 AADT). Ulsberg-Hanestad (around 2000 AADT), Hanestad "coincidentally" being one of the least trafficated parts of rv 3, corresponds in length to Ulsberg-Sel (3700 AADT). A few tens of km further to the north, however, the traffic on E6 and rv 3 is similar, except that the latter has many times as high truck and transit traffic, wheras regional, local and regional traffic dominates E6..


Again, I divided the sections, taking into consideration the difference in distance between E6. A point you suddenly don't want to consider when it doesn't support your argument, even making sure to start counting at the end which by far favours your argument the most... To your other point: If you can prove to me that the traffic some place north of Hanestad suddenly increases and decreases and why the HGV proportion still remain roughly the same (294 at Kvikne, 298 at Hanestad), please feel free to do so. If you can't, stop meddling with the facts, at least. It's rather annoying.



54°26′S 3°24′E;23349534 said:


> Your own calculations said 44 minutes, and Visveg said 41 minutes, both based on speed limits alone. We both agree that the E6 partly has heavier traffic, particularly during the summer the slow moving RV and mobile home traffic can be very annoying, and due to all the curves there are fewer passing possibities. Hence, the actual delay experienced by both me and the transit truck drivers is not exactly taken from thin air. Where you get your 30 minutes from remains to be explaned..


My calculations had nothing to do with speed limits, but with a reasonable travel speed. And apart from the Oppdal-Ulsberg and the Ringebu-Otta sections (totalling ca 85 kms), the overtaking possibilities doesn't particularly favour Østerdalen. As I said, I thought we were done, but I can't just let this be. So here they are, in detail:
E6:
Kolomoen-Biri 48 kms. Expected driving speed 95 kph, due to proper road and a few 2+1 sections. Travel time 26.57 mins.
Biri-Lillehammer S 29 kms. Expected speed down to 90, due to fewer overtaking possibilities. Travel time 19.20.
Lillehammer S-Ringebu 55 kms. Expected speed further down to 85, due to a few speed cameras as well... Travel time 38.45.
Ringebu-Otta 55 kms. Worst section, several 50 and 60 kph zones, so 70 average. Time 47.35.
Otta-Dombås 45 kms. 80 kph average easy, even without the previous 90 section. Time 33.45.
Dombås-Kongsvoll 43 kms. 100 average across the plateau is easy, I'm willing to go down to 95 due to the ascent. Time 27.40.
Kongsvoll-Oppdal 37 kms. To humour you, 80 average (I've never done it slower than 85-90). Time 27.45.
Oppdal-Ulsberg 24 kms . 70 average, again mainly to humour you. Time 20.35.
Total travel time 4 hours 2 mins 20 secs or thereabouts.

Rv 3
Kolomoen-Elverum 30 kms. Average speed 85, 100 for the first half, 70 for the rest. Time 21.15.
Elverum-Rena 32 kms. Average 80, due to a few 60 and 70 limits. Time 24.05.
Rena-Koppang 46 kms. Average 85. A few limited sections, and not Østerdalen at its very best. Time 32.27.
Koppang-Alvdal 87 kms. Average 95. With the current 80 limit, I'm not going much faster than that. Time 54.57.
Alvdal-Tynset 23 kms. Average 85, due to more curves and bans on overtaking. Time 14.57.
Tynset-Kvikne 49 kms 85 average, due to a- and descent. Time 34.37. 
Kvikne-Ulsberg 25 kms, average 75. Due to the Trøndelag part, even that may be stretching it. Time 20.00.
Total travel time 3 hours 22 mins 25 seconds. Approximately.

Comments? Feel free, but make them precise. Why is the average wrong on a given section, why, and what would be a better estimate? Otherwise, we're more than through. Btw, my actual travel speed would normally be slightly higher on a few sections in Gudbrandsdalen. Which is from where at least some of the final 10 min would come.

This is averages. Of course, over easter, the winter break and in parts of the summer months, the E6 is too busy to manage such speeds. But that wasn't the issue.



54°26′S 3°24′E;23349534 said:


> This is simply wrong. According to the current proposal of the new national transport plan, the only thing that will be built in Gudbrandsdalen within 2019 is Tingberg-Tretten. In the same plan, also the considerably longer Løten-Elverum is in on rv 3. In addition there will be smaller enhancements on that route. Your 15-25 minutes is only in a dream world, so far. In the longer run, there are at least as many possibilities to shorten the current rv 3 as E6. In any case it will take a long time and much money before E6 is competetive with rv 3 Oslo-Trondheim, there is 1 hour (or 30 minutes, as you insist) time lag, and the truck drivers will never choose the current E6 due to all the hills, they cannot drive at full motorway speed anyway.
> 
> Further, and more important for me: Thinking a few decades ahead, E6 along Gudbrandsdalenb can never be a full standard route without serious environmental implications, both in the valley itself, where a motorway will be quite ugly, and across the mountains, where there are issues like threatened reindeers etc. Whatever you do, Gudbrandsdalen is also doomed to have more curves, ups and downs compared with the alternative. In Østerdalen, building a proper road will both be significantly cheaper and more environmently friendly.


There are approved plans on a municipal level for the remainder of the stretch - excluding Biri-Lillehammer. True, funds aren't there yet, but it's only a matter of time (the politicians just have to agree on how high the tolls should be...). I'll get back to rv 3 and plans a little later, but afaik, the only thing that is locally approved, is the very busy Løten-Elverum section. Besides, even looking decades into the future, there will NEVER EVER be a Oslo-Trondheim motorway, neither in Østerdalen nor in Gudbrandsdalen.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

ElviS77 said:


> Which has never happened. No need to get nasty.


1. "without providing a shred of evidence to support this" I believe was a fairly strong statement after all that I have written on the subject, particularly since you still have not been able to support your own claim (30 minutes) in any way.

2. "because total traffic volumes, history and population density easily trumps distance and travel time for a tiny minority of the road's users"
I believe I have clearly demonstrated that the transit traffic is NOT a tiny minority for a large part of the road, say 50 %.


ElviS77 said:


> This is something that truly ticks me off, the way you misrepresent facts. Look at the AADT map: The E6 just dips below 3500 north of Otta whereas the rv 3 does the same north of Rena. Considerable difference, don't you think? And as long as you exclude the Dovre plateau where the total AADT is slightly higher than the Kvikne, slightly lower than Østerdalen north of Koppag. Again: Check the tables.


Exactly where is the misrepresentation of facts? I said approximately, and I did want to go into detail because I have already done so several times. The fact is that the Ulsberg-Otta distance is 150 km, almost exactly half the distance Ulsberg-Kolomoen (rv 3).



ElviS77; said:


> Read my post again. Latitude. Since we both agree that the road through Østerdalen is some 40 kms shorter than Gudbrandsdalen, I think it's a reasonable way of evaluating things. And: Kolomoen-Lillehammer is 80 kms, some 24% of the total 330 kms. Kolomoen-Rena 62 kms, some 21% of the 290 kms. If you really want, we could compare Vingrom with Rena instead...


Of course I read latitude, but who cares about that? Only the length of the road matters when you drive, and given that E6 is 40 km longer, using latitude is clearly a misrepresentation of relevant facts. Since we are talking about road sections with little traffic, both agreeing that the highly trafficated parts needs an upgrade anyway, going from the south does not make any sense either.



ElviS77; said:


> Again, I divided the sections, taking into consideration the difference in distance between E6. A point you suddenly don't want to consider when it doesn't support your argument, even making sure to start counting at the end which by far favours your argument the most.


See my argument above. The point is that a longer travel simply is not a favorable aspect of a road, where have I suggested otherwise? Following your logic you can let E6 go back and forth to Gjøvik and make ringroads around Hamar and Lillehammer. It would give E6 longer stretches with hgher traffic, but what is the point?


ElviS77; said:


> .. To your other point: If you can prove to me that the traffic some place north of Hanestad suddenly increases and decreases and why the HGV proportion still remain roughly the same (294 at Kvikne, 298 at Hanestad), please feel free to do so. If you can't, stop meddling with the facts, at least. It's rather annoying.


The AADT, which was what we were discussing, is higher in the Tynseth/Alvdal region. The truck traffic, as we have been through several times, is almost entirely transit traffic, and not many stops in Tynseth/Alvdal except perhaps for a break.

Now, can we leave this? Since we:
1. Agree that E6 Gudbrandsdalen/Lillehammer in parts have higher traffic
2. Agree that we disagree whether this is important for the question at hand.
I don't see any point in discussing this further.



ElviS77; said:


> My calculations had nothing to do with speed limits, but with a reasonable travel speed. And apart from the Oppdal-Ulsberg and the Ringebu-Otta sections (totalling ca 85 kms), the overtaking possibilities doesn't particularly favour Østerdalen. As I said, I thought we were done, but I can't just let this be. So here they are, in detail:
> E6:
> Kolomoen-Biri 48 kms. Expected driving speed 95 kph, due to proper road and a few 2+1 sections. Travel time 26.57 mins.
> Biri-Lillehammer S 29 kms. Expected speed down to 90, due to fewer overtaking possibilities. Travel time 19.20.
> Lillehammer S-Ringebu 55 kms. Expected speed further down to 85, due to a few speed cameras as well... Travel time 38.45.
> Ringebu-Otta 55 kms. Worst section, several 50 and 60 kph zones, so 70 average. Time 47.35.
> Otta-Dombås 45 kms. 80 kph average easy, even without the previous 90 section. Time 33.45.
> Dombås-Kongsvoll 43 kms. 100 average across the plateau is easy, I'm willing to go down to 95 due to the ascent. Time 27.40.
> Kongsvoll-Oppdal 37 kms. To humour you, 80 average (I've never done it slower than 85-90). Time 27.45.
> Oppdal-Ulsberg 24 kms . 70 average, again mainly to humour you. Time 20.35.
> Total travel time 4 hours 2 mins 20 secs or thereabouts.
> 
> Rv 3
> Kolomoen-Elverum 30 kms. Average speed 85, 100 for the first half, 70 for the rest. Time 21.15.
> Elverum-Rena 32 kms. Average 80, due to a few 60 and 70 limits. Time 24.05.
> Rena-Koppang 46 kms. Average 85. A few limited sections, and not Østerdalen at its very best. Time 32.27.
> Koppang-Alvdal 87 kms. Average 95. With the current 80 limit, I'm not going much faster than that. Time 54.57.
> Alvdal-Tynset 23 kms. Average 85, due to more curves and bans on overtaking. Time 14.57.
> Tynset-Kvikne 49 kms 85 average, due to a- and descent. Time 34.37.
> Kvikne-Ulsberg 25 kms, average 75. Due to the Trøndelag part, even that may be stretching it. Time 20.00.
> Total travel time 3 hours 22 mins 25 seconds. Approximately.
> 
> Comments? Feel free, but make them precise. Why is the average wrong on a given section, why, and what would be a better estimate? Otherwise, we're more than through. Btw, my actual travel speed would normally be slightly higher on a few sections in Gudbrandsdalen. Which is from where at least some of the final 10 min would come.


I am impressed of your energy, you even have been able to lower the travel time difference by another 2 minutes, still not reaching 30 minutes, however.....

Personally, I do not have time to go into detail of each leg, which you actually have to do in order to calculate precise by the minute estimates of the in total probably 50 - 100 speed zones on the two routes (wild guess). Have you? Also, Remember, a short 50-zone will lower the average speed a lot.

If I should dear to comment on a specific section, it would be the relatively easy to calculate Alvdal-Kvikne vs Dombås-Kongsvoll. They both have the same speed limit and have relatively few curves, Dombås-Kongsvoll have a larger ascent and descent, nevertheless you claim that Dombås-Kongsvoll is faster. 

My general comment would be that still if we accepted your assertion regarding passing possibilities (which I really don't), you do not anywhere, as far as I can see, take into account the higher traffic on the E6 and which in practice is quite important for both the average travel speed, need for passing, and for actual passing opportunities (and hence for comfortable travel, although this is not an issue here.)

In conclusion, I still stick to experienced travel time rather than a theoretical model that does not seem to be detailed or accurate enough. And my experience, and it seems, in the experience of the truck drivers (for somewhat different reasons), the difference is 1 hour.


ElviS77; said:


> This is averages. Of course, over easter, the winter break and in parts of the summer months, the E6 is too busy to manage such speeds. But that wasn't the issue.


Well, these periods are quite important for the total AADT, especially for Gudbrandsdalen, so I see no point in disregarding them here. Besides, the only times you can disregard the traffic in the E6 vs rv 3 would be late at night.

If I indeed accepted your 41 minute calculation, please tell me, how would that change anything in our basic discussion? 



ElviS77; said:


> There are approved plans on a municipal level for the remainder of the stretch - excluding Biri-Lillehammer. True, funds aren't there yet, but it's only a matter of time (the politicians just have to agree on how high the tolls should be...). I'll get back to rv 3 and plans a little later, but afaik, the only thing that is locally approved, is the very busy Løten-Elverum section.


Show me the money....

There are many plans on municipal level that are waiting to be approved and realized, not to mention national plans (remember those of the 60s/50s). Unless policies are changed (which I hope), it will take a long time before we will see your modest time reduction on E6, there are just so many competing projects that things unfortunately still will move in snail pace and not fast enough to keep up with the traffic growth. If policies indeed are changed, which may happen already in a year, I believe that bureaucrats as well as decision makers will see the benefits of investing a fraction of the money in Østerdalen as well. After all, there is neither a chance or political wish that the truck traffic and most of the other Østerdal traffic moves.


ElviS77; said:


> Besides, even looking decades into the future, there will NEVER EVER be a Oslo-Trondheim motorway, neither in Østerdalen nor in Gudbrandsdalen.


Well, it would not exactly be a moon landing. When a four-lane road is completed to Lillehammer and/or Elverum and Trøndelag also get much needed improvements on the E6 from the northern side, there will not be that many km left. Norway has 91 000 km of public roads already, mostly built in far poorer times, and mostly with a lot less traffic than we are discussing here. The 2000 km of motorways which is needed in order to connect the population centers of southern Norway should not be that hard, and will pay off in the long term. The cost would be less than one year of oil revenues. 

I am not a supporter of FrP, the right-wing progress party, but just now it seems that we will get a new government including FrP next fall. They will need to make a lot of compromizes with their potential and more responsible partners in order to form a basis of government. Especially after this summer's debate where infrastructure has been an issue, I am starting to believe that a general motorway plan is a bone which the other parties can throw to FrP, after all not many really disagrees on the fact that Norwegian infrastructure needs an upgrade. If the ball starts to roll on this, it will be hard to stop, I believe....


----------



## Ingenioren

Sorry that the colors are hard to tell from eachother on the map guys.... Dark red or what i called purple, 2 lane roads who are extra good condition. 

I support a change of E6 trough Østerdalen (Atleast put a sign by the exit saying how many kms to Trondheim by both alternatives, it's the fastest during winter and summer I think i saved almost 2 hours on the Rv3 when i tryed both.(Driving like a pig tough) 

And when i travel Oslo - Bergen i use Rv 7 and 52 over Hemsedal, who should be changed to E16 with a shortened road west of Hønefoss.


----------



## ElviS77

54°26′S 3°24′E;23368908 said:


> 1. "without providing a shred of evidence to support this" I believe was a fairly strong statement after all that I have written on the subject, particularly since you still have not been able to support your own claim (30 minutes) in any way.


Still it's true. I said that 30 mins is what can be expected, but to be nice I showed that even when not driving to the E6's capacity, the difference is about 40-45 mins.



54°26′S 3°24′E;23368908 said:


> 2. "because total traffic volumes, history and population density easily trumps distance and travel time for a tiny minority of the road's users"
> I believe I have clearly demonstrated that the transit traffic is NOT a tiny minority for a large part of the road, say 50 %.


Sorry, but you've either not read the texts, not understood what they say or are deliberatly misrepresenting them. All very annoying:

AADT below 2800 E6 Dombås-Mjøen. 22% (about 70 kms)
AADT below 2800 rv 3 Rena-Ulsberg. 74% (about 210 kms)

AADT above 10000 E6 Kolomoen-Lillehammer. 24% (about 80 kms)
AADT above 10000 rv 3 Løten N-Elverum. 3% (about 10 kms)

AADT above 5000 E6 Kolomoen-Otta. 55% (about 190 kms)
AADT above 5000 rv 3 Kolomoen-Elverum (not even the entire section...) 11% (about 30 kms).

Also: The weight of goods transported is par or up to 2.5 times higher on 70% of the E6, on 55% it's at least 1.5 times higher. Sources? 
Rv 3: http://www.vegvesen.no/stamvegutredninger/Stamvegrute_6b.pdf
E6: http://www.vegvesen.no/stamvegutredninger/Stamvegrute_6a.pdf

Until you accept these simple facts, I'm even more done.



54°26′S 3°24′E;23368908 said:


> Exactly where is the misrepresentation of facts?.


See above. 75-80% isn't "approximately" 50.


----------



## ElviS77

54°26′S 3°24′E;23368908 said:


> Of course I read latitude, but who cares about that? Only the length of the road matters when you drive, and given that E6 is 40 km longer, using latitude is clearly a misrepresentation of relevant facts. Since we are talking about road sections with little traffic, both agreeing that the highly trafficated parts needs an upgrade anyway, going from the south does not make any sense either.


This is just stupid. If you're going to make a sensible comparison between roads of different distance, you'll have to divide into percentage sections. Otherwise, the end you start counting becomes an issue. 80 kms from Kolomoen is 15 kms north of Rena. Better to compare Lillehammer to that?


----------



## ElviS77

54°26′S 3°24′E;23368908 said:


> Personally, I do not have time to go into detail of each leg, which you actually have to do in order to calculate precise by the minute estimates of the in total probably 50 - 100 speed zones on the two routes (wild guess). Have you? Also, Remember, a short 50-zone will lower the average speed a lot..


What's your point? I'm talking about the average speed I'm able to maintain, not speed limits.



54°26′S 3°24′E;23368908 said:


> If I should dear to comment on a specific section, it would be the relatively easy to calculate Alvdal-Kvikne vs Dombås-Kongsvoll. They both have the same speed limit and have relatively few curves, Dombås-Kongsvoll have a larger ascent and descent, nevertheless you claim that Dombås-Kongsvoll is faster. .


No. The limit Alvdal-Tynset is now 80 (as the rest of Østerdalen), across the Dovre plateau it's still 90, afaik (and I would do 100+ anyway...). As you also mentioned, the Alvdal-Tynset section is slightly busier than the rest of Østerdalen, with fewer overtaking possibilities than both the rest of Østerdalen and Dovre. 



54°26′S 3°24′E;23368908 said:


> My general comment would be that still if we accepted your assertion regarding passing possibilities (which I really don't), you do not anywhere, as far as I can see, take into account the higher traffic on the E6 and which in practice is quite important for both the average travel speed, need for passing, and for actual passing opportunities (and hence for comfortable travel, although this is not an issue here.).


Since we both agree that the Dovre plateau isn't all that busy, I don't see the problem there. For the Gudbrandsdal section with poor quality road I stated a 70 average, a speed I normally maintain with ease even between Ulsberg and Sokndal, which I think you'll agree is both truly bad and quite busy. For further comment on the speed on the 10-15 metre-wide section Kolomoen-Ringebu: This afternoon I drove Minnesund-Jessheim, basically the same road type, but far busier and with construction works with 50 and 70 zones. Still, I averaged just short of 80. Without stress, yes, even without a single overtaking.



54°26′S 3°24′E;23368908 said:


> In conclusion, I still stick to experienced travel time rather than a theoretical model that does not seem to be detailed or accurate enough. And my experience, and it seems, in the experience of the truck drivers (for somewhat different reasons), the difference is 1 hour.


I've never talked about lorries. And again, instead of commenting on my model, you discard it offhand, still without anything resembling evidence. Apart from your experience, that is.



54°26′S 3°24′E;23368908 said:


> Well, these periods are quite important for the total AADT, especially for Gudbrandsdalen, so I see no point in disregarding them here. Besides, the only times you can disregard the traffic in the E6 vs rv 3 would be late at night.


But it's ok to disregard the fact that most of the E6 is far busier when you make the case for the rv 3? Nonetheless, I have taken it into consideration, my model is valid 11 months (plus change) a year.


----------



## ElviS77

54°26′S 3°24′E;23368908 said:


> If I indeed accepted your 41 minute calculation, please tell me, how would that change anything in our basic discussion?


It probably won't move you an inch. Which doesn't matter to me, really, since it's the other reasons which I insist makes "E6 through Østerdalen" an illusion. 



54°26′S 3°24′E;23368908 said:


> Well, it would not exactly be a moon landing. When a four-lane road is completed to Lillehammer and/or Elverum and Trøndelag also get much needed improvements on the E6 from the northern side, there will not be that many km left. Norway has 91 000 km of public roads already, mostly built in far poorer times, and mostly with a lot less traffic than we are discussing here. The 2000 km of motorways which is needed in order to connect the population centers of southern Norway should not be that hard, and will pay off in the long term. The cost would be less than one year of oil revenues.
> 
> I am not a supporter of FrP, the right-wing progress party, but just now it seems that we will get a new government including FrP next fall. They will need to make a lot of compromizes with their potential and more responsible partners in order to form a basis of government. Especially after this summer's debate where infrastructure has been an issue, I am starting to believe that a general motorway plan is a bone which the other parties can throw to FrP, after all not many really disagrees on the fact that Norwegian infrastructure needs an upgrade. If the ball starts to roll on this, it will be hard to stop, I believe....


We don't need a motorway Oslo-Trondheim. We need to spend money on sensible projects, not on motorways for 2000 cars a day. If we were to get the proposed standards on both the rv 3 and the E6 in 15-25 years, that'd make a lot of sense and me happy. As for Frp's prospects in government, they're not very smart, and thus, they'll be eaten alive by bureucrats. That is, if they ever get into government, which I seriously doubt. Polls aren't elections.

So what are sensible projects? First, motorways where they're actually needed (for instance where AADTs are expected beyond 10000 in the next 25-30 years). Second, 2+1 expressways with central barrier on a considerable proportion of international, trunk and regional roads. Third, safer local roads with bike and pedestrian paths.


----------



## Þróndeimr

> In Norwegian Aftenposten: Kan fullføre 17 flere veiprosjekter før 2020
> 
> *Hvis fylkespolitikerne får det som de vil, kan veinettet se slik ut på Østlandet i 2020: Firefelts motorveier i fem retninger ut av Oslo, og bedre veier mot Trondheim og Bergen.*


Regional politicians vs. National politicians on the road matter. If the regional politicians win the fight we might see much better highways and motorways around Oslo.

But the conditions is a big increase in the budged. The national plan suggest 13.9 billion NOK withinn 2019, while the regional plan need ta least 50.4 billion NOK withinn 2020.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

*More on the Trondheim-Oslo debate....*

Elvis77 and other that may have made an attempt to follow the rv 3/E6 debate: I feel this discussion has seriously derailed, and I am really starting to get fed up, hence the delay in responding. However, the latest massive response of ElviS77 I believe deserves an (unfortunately no less massive) correction from me. For those who are not particularly interested in AADT or by the minute travel times in interior Norway, I suggest you go directly to my “Concluding remarks” at the end of this post which summarizes what I think is important in this debate. Whether Norway should construct a national motorway network or not I think is another and more interesting debate, and this issue is thus replied to in a separate post.

*The big Trondheim-Oslo traffic number debate*


ElviS77 said:


> This is just stupid. If you're going to make a sensible comparison between roads of different distance, you'll have to divide into percentage sections. Otherwise, the end you start counting becomes an issue. 80 kms from Kolomoen is 15 kms north of Rena. Better to compare Lillehammer to that?


So, how many percentages or degrees latitude have you driven lately? Most people spend real time driving real km/miles which consumes real fuel. 

Once again, the fact that the Gudbrandsdalen road is longer can never be used as an argument in favour for the road. The fallacy of your argument can best be illustrated using a simple example: City A and B has two road links: One direct link and one link via the smaller town C. Links C-B and A-B has equal traffic and length, but A-C has more traffic. What you are arguing is that since A-C-B has a higher percentage of heavy traffic, it should be used as the preferred link between A and B, even though the high traffic leg A-C does not bring you any closer to B. It simply does not make any sense! 

Applied for the question at hand. When arriving from Kolomoen to Lillehammer/Otta (current E6) it is true that you have travelled further along a highly trafficated road than when you arrive at Elverum/Rena. But you are not any closer to your destination at Ulsberg!



ElviS77 said:


> Sorry, but you've either not read the texts, not understood what they say or are deliberatly misrepresenting them. All very annoying:


I simply don’t see why you have to be so negative in your replies. What about keeping to the issues? In a debate, you can hardly expect that your opponent share your view, and represent things the way you would do, then there would not be a debate. However, what I expect from other forum members is that when they present something as a fact, it should be true. Unfortunately, already many times during this debate I have had check your so called facts only to realize that they are wrong, and unfortunately your latest replies were no better. I am not perfect, but I do not believe that you have been able to arrest me on a serious factual error.

But what were we actually discussing?

*Elvis77:* ”I say that it will never happen, because total traffic volumes, history and population density easily trumps distance and travel time for a * tiny minority* of the road's users.”
*54°26′S 3°24′E:* ”I believe I have clearly demonstrated that the transit traffic is NOT a *tiny minority* for a large part of the road, say 50 %.”

Now, almost all traffic between Kvikne and Innset at the county border Hedmark-S-Trøndelag is transit traffic Kolomoen-Ulsberg, AADT around 1800 according to  viskart. The transit traffic of E6 is harder to calculate, but lets assume that the transit traffic is equal to the traffic across Dovre (1750) minus the lowest traffic on rv 70 Oppdal-Sunndalsøra (1170), i.e. 550. This is probably a slight underestimation, as some rv 70-traffic ends in Oppdal and some goes on to Trondheim. On the other hand, some of the E6 traffic from the south stops in Oppdal as well. So, in order not to start a row with you regarding this issue as well, let’s say the total transit traffic Ulsberg-Kolomoen is around AADT 2350. Again going from the north, we have the following total traffic numbers, ignoring local traffic increase when the road goes through towns:

Ulsberg-Dombås/Ulsberg-Somewhere south of Alvdal: 103 km, 35% of route, approx 4000 AADT, transit traffic ratio 59 %.
Dombås-Otta/South of Alvdal - Atna: 47 km, 16 % of route, approx 3800 (somewhere it’s down to 3300)+2200=6000 AADT, transit traffic ratio 39 %
Otta-Lillehammer/Atna-Elverum:113 km, 38 % of route, approx 6500 (mostly below 6000)+2900=9400 AADT, transit traffic ratio 25 %.
Lillehammer/Elverum-Kolomoen: 33 km, 11 % of route, approx 11 000 (somewhere below 10 000)+8000=19 000 AADT, transit traffic ratio 12.4 %


Hence, on 51 % of the route, the transit traffic is 39 % or higher, on 35 % of the route, the transit traffic is dominating. Even if you probably still argue that a longer road somehow is an advantage, I still cannot see how 25 % or even 12.4 % is “tiny”. Using these numbers, it is also possible to calculate total traffic work (AADT-km):

Real traffic work: 
Transit: 2350*296 km=696 000 AADT-km
Total:103*4000+47*6000+113*9400+33*19000=2 383 000 AADT-km
Transit-ratio: 29 %​
Transit ratio with relative road lengths (hence a detour as useful as a shortcut):
(Transit AADT)/(Total work E6/length E6+Tot work rv 3/length rv3)=
2350/((103*2000+47*3800+113*6500+77*11000)/340+(103*2000+47*2200+113*2900+33*8000)/296)=27 %​
Transit ratio favouring long routes (your alternative, I bet):
(Transit work E6+transit work rv 3)/(Total work E6+Tot work rv 3)=
(1800*296+550*340)/(103*2000+47*3800+113*6500+77*11000)+(103*2000+47*2200+113*2900+33*8000))=25 %​
For the goods, using the somewhat outdated (2002) figure on page 10 of http://www.vegvesen.no/stamvegutredninger/Stamvegrute_6a.pdf, and still assuming that around 50 % of the goods go to rv 70 at Oppdal, we get a total of 1.9 M tonns of transit goods:

Ulsberg-Dombås/Ulsberg-Somewhere south of Alvdal: 103 km, 35% of route, 1.6+0.6=2.2 Mt, transit goods ratio 86 %.
Dombås-Otta/South of Alvdal - Atna: 47 km, 16 % of route, 1.6+1.6=3.2 Mt, transit goods ratio 59 %
Otta-Lillehammer/Atna-Elverum:113 km, 38 % of route, 2.2+approx 1.75=3.95Mt, transit goods ratio 48 %.
Lillehammer/Elverum-Kolomoen: 33 km, 11 % of route, approx 3.9+1.8=5.7Mt, , transit goods ratio 33 %
Total goods-km:

Real traffic work: 

Transit: 1.9*296 km=562 Mt-km
Total:103*2.2+47*3.2+113*3.95+33*5.7=1000 Mt-km
Transit-ratio: 56 %​Transit ratio with relative road lengths Transit ratio with relative road lengths (hence a detour as useful as a shortcut):
(Transit Goods)/(Total goods km E6/length E6+Tot goods km rv 3/length rv3)=
1.9/((103*0.6+47*1.6+113*2.2+77*3.9)/340+(103*1.6+47*1.6+113*1.75+33*1.8)/296)=51 %​Transit ratio favouring long routes (your alternative?):
(Transit goods km E6+transit goods km rv 3)/(Total goods km E6+Tot goods km rv 3)=
(1.6*296+0.3*340)/((103*0.6+47*1.6+113*2.2+77*3.9)+(103*1.6+47*1.6+113*1.75+33*1.8))=48.7 %​Surely, the goods traffic is many times as important as the average AADT in an economic sense. As I will come back to, the truck traffic has increased dramatically on rv 3 lately.

In conclusion, I cannot possibly see how the transit traffic can be regarded as a tiny fraction of the traffic between Ulsberg and Kolomoen, so if anybody is misrepresenting, it must be you.


ElviS77 said:


> AADT below 2800 E6 Dombås-Mjøen. 22% (about 70 kms)
> AADT below 2800 rv 3 Rena-Ulsberg. 74% (about 210 kms)
> 
> AADT above 10000 E6 Kolomoen-Lillehammer. 24% (about 80 kms)
> AADT above 10000 rv 3 Løten N-Elverum. 3% (about 10 kms)
> 
> AADT above 5000 E6 Kolomoen-Otta. 55% (about 190 kms)
> AADT above 5000 rv 3 Kolomoen-Elverum (not even the entire section...) 11% (about 30 kms).
> 
> Also: The weight of goods transported is par or up to 2.5 times higher on 70% of the E6, on 55% it's at least 1.5 times higher. Sources?
> Rv 3: http://www.vegvesen.no/stamvegutredninger/Stamvegrute_6b.pdf
> E6: http://www.vegvesen.no/stamvegutredninger/Stamvegrute_6a.pdf


Considering the AADT numbers, your claims are not documented in your ”sources”. The tables only show traffic at selected points not on continuous stretches, and the maps only show traffic in intervals that does not equal the once you have given above. The only source that in fact gives AADT accurately on legs is the  viskart engine from Vegvesenet (Norw. road auth.). The numbers you have provided are however not that far off, except that Kolomoen-Elverum indeed is above 5000 everywhere, E6 north of Kolomoen is slightly below 10 000, and most importantly, E6 is more or less below 2800 all the way to Ulsberg. However, to prove my point, I prefer to present the data a bit differently, just like you ignoring short stints of slightly higher traffic through small towns:

AADT below 2800 E6 Dombås-Ulsberg, 103 km
AADT below 2800 rv 3 Rena-Ulsberg, 230 km

AADT below 4000 E6 Nord-Sel-Ulsberg 137 km
AADT below 5000 rv 3 Rena-Ulsberg: 230 km 

AADT below 5000 E6 Otta-Ulsberg 150 km
AADT below 5000 rv 3 Grundseth (Elverum N)-Ulsberg: 261 km 

I.e., the traffic on E6 is relatively small for 150 km, which is a bit more than half the Kolomoen-Ulsberg distance. 103 km of the current E6 (35 %) has similar traffic.



ElviS77 said:


> Also: The weight of goods transported is par or up to 2.5 times higher on 70% of the E6, on 55% it's at least 1.5 times higher. Sources?
> 
> Until you accept these simple facts, I'm even more done.


Simple facts, huh? Why don’t you recheck the stamvegutredninger-document that you claim is your source. It clearly says (figure on page 10):

Rv 3: 
Ulsberg-Koppang, 173 km (58%), 1.6 Mt
Koppang-Kolomoen, 123 km (42 %), 1.8 Mt

E6:
Ulsberg-Dombås: 103 km (35 % of Kolomoen-Ulsberg, 30% Kolomoen-Dombås-Ulsberg), less or equal to 0.6 Mt (38 % of Ulsberg-Koppang (rv 3))
Dombås- Otta:47 km (16 % of Kolomoen-Ulsberg,14 % of Kolomoen-Dombås-Ulsberg), 1.6 Mt (Equal to Ulsberg-Koppang (rv 3))
Otta-Lillehammer: 113 km (38% of Kolomoen-Ulsberg, 33 % of K-D-U), 2.2 Mt (122 % of Koppang-Kolomoen (rv 3))
Lillehammer-Moelv: 31 km (10 % of Kolomoen-Ulsberg, 9 % of K-D-U), 3.4 Mt (189 % Koppang-Kolomoen (rv 3))
Moelv-Kolomoen: 49 km (17 % of Kolomoen-Ulsberg, 14 % of K-D-U), 44 km of it is simply a detour, 4.4 Mt (244 % Koppang-Kolomoen (rv 3))

I.e: E6 has length corresponding to HALF the rv 3 with EQUAL or (SIGNIFICANT) LOWER goods traffic than rv 3. Of the useful transit length of E6, only 29% has more traffic than 125 % the goods traffic of rv 3. NOWHERE is the goods traffic on E6 more than 2.5 times the traffic of rv 3. Maybe it’s about time to scale down your arrogance a few notches, or at least verify your “facts” before you blurt out your comments?

(And as discussed above, transit traffic represents at least 50 % of the goods traffic, of which 90 % uses rv 3)


ElviS77 said:


> See above. 75-80% isn't "approximately" 50.


First of all, see above, 75-80% are hardly the relevant numbers. You obviously need to get things repeated several times, so I just quote my former post, on which my “approximately” statement were based:


54°26′S 3°24′E;23037362 said:


> As I have pointed out several times now, the truck traffic is (partly significantly) higher on all points on Rv 3 than on the entire leg between Otta and Ulsberg (that is 147 km of the length, i.e. roughly half the Gudbrandsdal/Dovre road). From Dombås to Ulsberg (roughly 102 km) the total AADT on E6 is similar to what you have at the point of lowest traffic on rv 3 (i.e. Kvikne), and the transit traffic is far from marginal, but dominating on these legs. As pointed out repeatedly, at all points the Oslo-Trondheim transit traffic along rv 3 is massively larger than at E6.


Since the these studies were done, rv 3 has had very high growth in heavy traffic, however, up 33 % only in 2007. The reason for this growth may be that NSB is working on capacity limit. The growth in traffic north of Otta has hardly been that high, so with high probability the heavy traffic in Østerdalen is now higher, and mostly significantly higher, than all points at E6 Otta-Ulsberg.

*The “great” debate about Kolomoen-Ulsberg driving times:*



ElviS77 said:


> What's your point? I'm talking about the average speed I'm able to maintain, not speed limits.


So speed limits do not matter when you drive? When it comes to Østerdalen, speed limits are certainly what limits the speed for most people, either you drive on the limit, at roughly 20 km/h above (which some do to keep their licence). Even if you do not care about the limit, as unfortunately quite a lot people in Østerdalen, most of it can be driven quite comfortable at 130 km/h or so, at least that is what all the people passing me there seems to think. There IS a big difference with Gudbrandsdalen, which has:

More speed cameras (soon average speed cameras)
More cops
More towns/local traffic/tractors/RVs
Significantly worse curvature:
Curvature E6/rv 3









If you keep to the speed limit, and are driving at night with little traffic, the difference Dovre/Gudbrandsdalen is 41 min according to the vegvesenet engine, which may not take into account the recent speed reduction across Dovre (see below). Other than that, if you don’t care about speed limits or there is other traffic on the road, the difference is larger. Everybody that has been driving the two roads a few times knows this, I don’t understand why you keep denying the obvious.


ElviS77 said:


> No. The limit Alvdal-Tynset is now 80 (as the rest of Østerdalen), across the Dovre plateau it's still 90, afaik


As I have said earlier, it is quite surprising that you on your “regular trips” have not discovered that the 90-zone across Dovre has been history since last fall...


ElviS77 said:


> (and I would do 100+ anyway...).


But in Østerdalen you were not going faster than 95 with the new 80-limit....


ElviS77 said:


> As you also mentioned, the Alvdal-Tynset section is slightly busier than the rest of Østerdalen, with fewer overtaking possibilities than both the rest of Østerdalen and Dovre.


Don’t be ridiculous. Alvdal-Tynset mostly consists of several km long straight sections. There are not many two-lane roads in Norway with better passing opportunities.




ElviS77 said:


> I've never talked about lorries.


Well, you claim that Gudbrandsdalen somehow can become the main North-South transit route after future road improvements. The trucks are certainly the part of the traffic that is most important economically. 



ElviS77 said:


> And again, instead of commenting on my model, you discard it offhand, still without anything resembling evidence. Apart from your experience, that is.


What have you offered, except for your “personal” (and apparantly not terribly updated) experience? You have divided it up in sections, yes, but still what you have given is personal, and from the sections I have bothered to check, rather biased opinions. I have on the other hand offered:
1. Travel times from the road authorities (41 minutes)
2. Reasons why the difference usually is larger (and certainly not smaller) in practice (se above)
3. Statements from truck drivers (1 hour difference)
4. And yes, my own experience, which is similar to what all other people I have discussed this with (1 hour by car)

And if you did not notice it, Ingeniøren claimed even two hours above.



ElviS77 said:


> But it's ok to disregard the fact that most of the E6 is far busier when you make the case for the rv 3? Nonetheless, I have taken it into consideration, my model is valid 11 months (plus change) a year.


I have not disregarded anything, see above. I can’t see that you have taken into consideration anywhere, and by the way, traffic on E6 in Gudbrandsdalen is dominated higher than normal due to recreation traffic during summer season (at least 2 months), Christmas-, Easter-,winter- and fall breaks (another month), all weekends (2/7x9 remaining months), in total 4.5 months.


ElviS77 said:


> Still it's true. I said that 30 mins is what can be expected, but to be nice I showed that even when not driving to the E6's capacity, the difference is about 40-45 mins.


Yeah, right....


ElviS77 said:


> It probably won't move you an inch. Which doesn't matter to me, really, since it's the other reasons which I insist makes "E6 through Østerdalen" an illusion.


But you started this by claiming that traffic somehow would be transferred to Gudbrandsdalen.



ElviS77 said:


> In terms of the alternatives: The E16, although the longest, is by far the best connection in wintertime, the road is almost never closed. The E134 is a short link and it is important anyway, linking northern Rogaland (and even Stavanger, when the Boknafjord crossing is eventually built) to Oslo. However, as a Bergen link it has major weaknesses: The link between Røldal and Trengereid outside Bergen is abysmal in places and the ferry won't go away in decades, if ever. The E134 itself (I'll get back to that road in a guide later) crosses over several hills even before the Haukeli plateau. It will eventually be improved, though, but I see it more as the Oslo-Rogaland link.
> 
> The rv7 is out of the question. It crosses the Hardangervidda national park, the pass is at 1250 metres more than 200 metres higher than Filefjell (and thus closed for long periods in the winter), wild reindeer is an issue, not to mention the long and steep climb on the western side. That leaves the rv7/52 through Hemsedal. This makes far more sense, both because it's shorter than the E16 (and becoming even shorter in a few years time as 20 kms will be shaved off due to the new Sokna-Ørgenvika road) and because it's important as a link Between Oslo and the Hallingdal and Hemsedal anyway. The mountain pass is steeper and somewhat higher than Filefjell, but it's relatively short and managable.


You seem to put a very high importance on AADT on the E6 issue, why is it not at all important Oslo-Bergen? 









Of all the major east-west routes (E16, E134, rv7/52), E16 has clearly the lowest transit traffic. Only 500 cars, and 124 trucks, makes rv 3 sound like metro-motorway in comparison. Except the relatively short Oslo-Hønefoss stint, also the local traffic is much lower on the E16 than rv 7/52 and E18/E134. Of course Oslo-Hønefoss will be covered by rv 7/52 if renamed E16. Could it, possibly, be that you simply that your fierce defence of the current E6 is due to a “slight” Oppland-bias, which both E16 and E6 passes through currently, or is it the party book that governs your choices....


*Concluding Remarks*









E6 is supposed to be the road that runs through Norway and connect the south to the north in the 2500 km long country caller Norway
Today, however, most car traffic and 90 % of the truck traffic between the main population centers on the route, Trondheim-area and Oslo, is using another road, rv 3 further to the east, on approximately 300 km of the route. Rv 3 is drawn in blue on the map above. The reason is that rv 3 is 44 km shorter, is flatter (with highest point roughly 300 m lower), and has better curvature than E6 (hopefully not disputed), and is 40-60 minutes slower (disputed by Elvis77), a situation that is not likely to change in the future 
Rv 3 today connects the main population center of the country, the greater Oslo area, everything south of Oslo, as well as Akershus and Hedmark counties to central and Northern Norway (at least the two Trøndelag counties, Norland and small parts of Møre og Romsdal), with a total population of at least 650 000, including the third biggest city in Norway, Trondheim, which currently has the second largest population growth in absolute numbers. With a significant improvement of the road, rv 3 may also serve some of the traffic between southern Norway and the two northernmost counties with additional 225 000 people, which today mostly goes through Sweden, as well as the northern part of Møre and Romsdal (roughly 120 000). Potentially the rv 3 can thus serve as the southern transit route for the whole roughly 1 M people of southern and central Norway. The traffic growth on rv 3 has been very high lately.
E6, following the current route is also an important road. It connects Oslo and southern Hedmark/Oppland with the North-Western part of South Norway as well as the upper part of the interior county of Oppland, with a total population estimated to 380 000. These regions have a population growth lower than the national average. In addition it connects central Norway (Trondheim) with upper Hedmark and parts of central western Norway, at least during summer, but this generate relatively little traffic. Also E6 has had quite high growth during the last few years, in part due to recreational traffic between the Oslo-area and the ski-resorts established in Gudbrandsdalen due to the Lillehammer Olympics 1994.
According to the Norwegian road authorities, the functions of rv 3 vs E6 is not likely to change even if the current E6 is improved. The advantages of rv 3 is simply too large for the transit traffic.
The E6 goes through a quite narrow, winding valley with many towns and beautiful cultural landscape, and the mountain pass is through a national park with threatened species like mountain fox and wild reindeer. Significant improvements for transit traffic will thus be quite expensive and controversial. On the other hand, rv 3 goes through a much less steep, and mainly forested (and rather boring) valley, mostly with moraine gravel ground, and is, on a Norwegian scale, a very easy place to build roads.
Between 51 and 56 % (depending on how you calculate) of the total goods tonnage-km is today transit traffic based on 2005 numbers. The split between rv 3 and E6 is similar, with between 45-49 % on rv 3. Since 2005 goods traffic at least on rv 3 has increased dramatically, 33 % only from 2006 to 2007. Correspondingly, the transit AADT-km is at least between 27 and 29 %. Rv 3 carries between 35 and 38 % of the total AADT-km, but most of the AADT km of E6 comes on the southern leg of E6 which essentially is a detour for the transit traffic.
In conclusion: 
I think that many aspects favours to move the E6 to where rv 3 goes today. This is after all where the north-south traffic goes and will go for the foreseeable future. The The current E6 between Kolomoen (split rv 3/E6) and Dombås is also an important road, but with more of a regional character, and it is essentially a dead end (i.e. little transit traffic). I think it would be a good idea to extending E136 through Gudbrandsdalen to Kolomoen, since this road is already serving the North-western corner of Southern Norway.

Renumbering the roads are however not the most important issue. What bugs me incredible is however when people, mostly from the district where the current E6 runs, argue that this is the “main north-south route” or even “the main Oslo-Trondheim highway”. It is neither, and will never be again. It is complete mysterious that rv 3 is not the signposted Trondheim-Oslo road, well, I guess it leaves the average tourist with a better impression of Norway as E6 is without doubt the most pittoresque of the two roads!

Like many roads in Norway, both roads need improvement, very badly, considering the amount of traffic and importance of the two roads. However, Rv 3 I believe has the largest potential on a cost/benefit basis for a possible future national motorway network.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

*Motorway network in Norway?*



ElviS77 said:


> We don't need a motorway Oslo-Trondheim. We need to spend money on sensible projects, not on motorways for 2000 cars a day.


If ever constructed, an Oslo-Trondheim motorway certainly will not have only 2000 cars. If a motorway is constructed the whole way the time benefit would probably be so large that almost all transit traffic will choose the same route, at least if the most sensible route (Østerdalen IMO) is selected. As discussed in the previous post, the transit traffic by car today (rv 3 + Gudbrandsdalen) is at least 2350, probably higher. In addition, a much larger portion of the Møre og Romsdal traffic would probably also select Østerdalen if this route is improved. According to the Norwegian railway authorities, the total number of persons travelling IN EACH DIRECTION Trondheim-Oslo will be 12 000 if high speed HSR is constructed, and 8000 if not. Today, about 50 % of the passengers travel by air, only 30 % (or less) travel by car. With four hours or less travel time, the total time use will be almost the same by car or air for most people. Of course, a motorway will dip into the low-end air market, as well as creating new traffic, as Trondheim becomes almost as close to Oslo by car as Arendal is today. HSR probably will take a lot of the high-end air traffic, if constructed. The total traffic is hard to estimate without going deeper into the subject, but to me an opening transit AADT of 7000-8000 does not seem unrealistic to me at all. The gap up to your 10 000 limit will most likely be filled a few years after opening; Norway being one of the few countries in Europe where both the economy and population is growing steadily. On most of the length there will be local traffic in addition to the transit traffic, of course. In order that the full benefit of the road should be realized, it is however important that also the least trafficated parts are improved. There are BTW quite a few sections on the US interstate system that still has lower than 2000 AADT.



ElviS77 said:


> If we were to get the proposed standards on both the rv 3 and the E6 in 15-25 years, that'd make a lot of sense and me happy. As for Frp's prospects in government, they're not very smart, and thus, they'll be eaten alive by bureucrats. That is, if they ever get into government, which I seriously doubt. Polls aren't elections.


One problem with the current standards is that they will not improve transit travel times substantially compared with what we had 30 years ago, although safety probably will be better. A second problem is that the traffic growth always have been underestimated in the past, and the effect has been that roads have had to be rebuilt with only a few years between, which is a very expensive way of doing it. A third problem is that they do not at all take into account the fact that the cost of building a road, and hence profitability, of a project vary wildly. The cost of building a road in for instance Østerdalen and in an urban area is very different.

Opinion polls are not elections. However, the current government won the narrowest defeat three years ago, in fact they did not even win the popular vote. Since then they have been behind the opposition almost all the time, currently the ratio is 38 to 62 %, and it has been so for a long time. FrP is the biggest party on the opinion polls steadily with more than 30 %, and I would say it is very likely that they will be part of the governing coalition some way or another in one year, like it or not.

Although I do not like their politics on most issues, I actually think that the FrP politicians are extremely professional on a Norwegian scale. In any case, if the parliament actually decides something, things usually progress in Norway. The problem has historically been political indecisiveness, not bureaucrats. Do you seriously think that Vegvesenet would refuse to build roads if they are funded by the parliament to do so?


ElviS77 said:


> So what are sensible projects? First, motorways where they're actually needed (for instance where AADTs are expected beyond 10000 in the next 25-30 years). Second, 2+1 expressways with central barrier on a considerable proportion of international, trunk and regional roads. Third, safer local roads with bike and pedestrian paths.


Basically, I don’t disagree with your priorities. Main highways with AADTs beyond 10000 should be built first. Many of these roads will anyway be a part of a national network, if ever realized. As argued above, however, motorways connecting the big cities would probably reach this AADT level in 25-30 years ahead. Trondheim-Oslo and Oslo-Kristiansand should probably be built before Oslo-Bergen/Stavanger. The former will not necessarily have higher traffic than a east/west-connection, but will certainly be cheaper to build. Also, it would also probably be a good idea, cost-wise and environmentally, to construct new roads in conjunction and concurrent with the proposed HSR lines, if those are every built. As you probably know, the HSR lines require a lot of landscaping, to a much higher degree than a motorway.

Regarding the economics of it, I sometimes find it handy to quote myself:



54°26′S 3°24′E;16296121 said:


> Actually, economists have calculated that a (4-lane) motorway network connecting the population centers in the southern half of Norway would save 62 billion NOK (8.2 billion Euros or 11.5 billion USD) a year, and many lives. The ballpark figure of much it would cost to build the 2000 km double-y-network that would connect 90 % of the population of southern Norway is 100 billion NOK. Even is this estimate, which is based on costs of recent Swedish motorways ++, is off by a factor of two, this would be a very good investment. To illustrate what these figures means in real terms for Norway:
> 
> *62 billion NOK is twice the Norwegian defense budget
> *The cost of a recent offshore development finnished this year (Ormen Lange) was 66 billion NOK. There are many of these...
> *The projected SURPLUS of the Norwegian national budget of 2007 is 375 billion NOK
> *At the end of next year, the Norwegian government will have roughly 2 500 billion NOK invested in funds abroad.
> 
> New research has also shown that as new roads in the cities usually mean larger emission due to increased traffic, this is not true for interregional roads. Traveling frequency seems relatively unaffected by road standard. Thus, enhanced interregional roads will greatly reduce emissions because fuel efficiency is very low in the often clogged and almost always winding Norwegian roads.
> 
> I however also support the development of a high speed train network in Norway, which the current government seems to support, since this will greatly reduce our dependence on air-travel on point-to-point travel between the cities, as discussed by MaxxPower above. The estimated cost of such a network is 200-300 billion NOK for southern Norway. However, these trains can only make a few stops, and cannot serve the whole country, a family on their trip to their cabin, or, most importan, the truck traffic.
> 
> I realize that the biggest hurdle is not money, but getting enough hands to build the infrastructure. However, I believe this is a matter of priority, and the use of foreign construction companies would probably ease the inflationary pressure. In any case the projections are that there will be even less hands in the future, so there won't come a "better" time.


----------



## ElviS77

54°26′S 3°24′E;24022770 said:


> As I have said earlier, it is quite surprising that you on your “regular trips” have not discovered that the 90-zone across Dovre has been history since last fall...
> 
> But in Østerdalen you were not going faster than 95 with the new 80-limit....
> 
> Don’t be ridiculous. Alvdal-Tynset mostly consists of several km long straight sections. There are not many two-lane roads in Norway with better passing opportunities.


I'm fed up, since this obviously is completely pointless. My only comment, thus, is this.

Afaik, the 80 kph across the Dovre plateau is a winter speed limit. If not, my mistake. And I haven't driven there since last summer, that is absolutely true. Nonetheless, since the section is one of the very best in Norway, with excellent overtaking opportunities throughout, there are few Norwegian highways where I'd go faster. The Østerdal has fewer overtaking opportunities, more police and more lorries, thus 95. Alvdal-Tynset: There is a ban on overtaking for about 5 of 24 kms, quite a few exits and a couple of junctions, a couple of 70 sections and even a speed camera. So I stand by my claim, yes.

The very fastest link is Rendalen, anyway...


----------



## ElviS77

54°26′S 3°24′E;24022770 said:


> You seem to put a very high importance on AADT on the E6 issue, why is it not at all important Oslo-Bergen?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of all the major east-west routes (E16, E134, rv7/52), E16 has clearly the lowest transit traffic. Only 500 cars, and 124 trucks, makes rv 3 sound like metro-motorway in comparison. Except the relatively short Oslo-Hønefoss stint, also the local traffic is much lower on the E16 than rv 7/52 and E18/E134. Of course Oslo-Hønefoss will be covered by rv 7/52 if renamed E16. Could it, possibly, be that you simply that your fierce defence of the current E6 is due to a “slight” Oppland-bias, which both E16 and E6 passes through currently, or is it the party book that governs your choices.....


Since this is a different story, a second response: Again, I'm not talking about what I want. I'm talking about what is actually going on.

In terms of the east-west link: It seems as though the E16 will remain where it is. Which I DON'T approve of, my chosen corridor would be the rv 7/52. That might even be realistic, mainly because the east-west numbering isn't as set in stone as the E6 (only part of the rv 7 hasn't seen any change in numbering or status over the past decade). 

I'll get back to you on the Trondheim-Oslo issue. With some reluctance, however, since I still don't fancy your approach to actual facts and my arguments. But since that debate is important, I'll take the time.


----------



## Krasnal.

I was in Norway ths holiday. The roads are nice, but can someone tell me, why they are so narrow? We were riding by a bus road to Gjovik via Miosa lake, for example, and then when second bus arrived, we've got lot of problems to go forward. It's really anoying ;]


----------



## NiceGuy

54°26′S 3°24′E;23123436 said:


> http://img106.imageshack.us/img106/8424/firefeltsstrategiiq9.jpg


 I think that map is completely ridiculous. The most important things that have to be changed are that:

1. The entire Norwegian part of E18 should be motorway (red color), linking Stavanger, Kristansand, Oslo and Ärjang. I know that this is not the shortest way between Stavanger and Oslo, but there are hundreds small cities and towns along E18, and the road already has lots of traffic (and traffic deaths).

2. E6 between Oslo and Trondheim should be motorway (red color), either through Gudbrandsdalen or Østerdalen. E6 should also be improved a lot in Northern Norway - this might be a good place to use the narrow 4-lane concept (yellow color).

3. There shall be NO MORE bridges or tunnels to uninhabited islands and fjords!

4. There should be a straight road directly from Oslo to Åmotfors, either as motorway (red) or narrow 4-lane (yellow). By doing this, Swedish shopping will be only 20 minutes away from Oslo by car


----------



## ElviS77

54°26′S 3°24′E;24022828 said:


> If ever constructed, an Oslo-Trondheim motorway certainly will not have only 2000 cars. If a motorway is constructed the whole way the time benefit would probably be so large that almost all transit traffic will choose the same route, at least if the most sensible route (Østerdalen IMO) is selected. As discussed in the previous post, the transit traffic by car today (rv 3 + Gudbrandsdalen) is at least 2350, probably higher. In addition, a much larger portion of the Møre og Romsdal traffic would probably also select Østerdalen if this route is improved.


I agree. We might even see a transit AADT of more than 3000, perhaps even 4000, in 20-30 years time. Noone needs a motorway to deal with that kind of traffic. A 1+1/2+1 with a guardrail would make sense, however.



54°26′S 3°24′E;24022828 said:


> According to the Norwegian railway authorities, the total number of persons travelling IN EACH DIRECTION Trondheim-Oslo will be 12 000 if high speed HSR is constructed, and 8000 if not. Today, about 50 % of the passengers travel by air, only 30 % (or less) travel by car. With four hours or less travel time, the total time use will be almost the same by car or air for most people. Of course, a motorway will dip into the low-end air market, as well as creating new traffic, as Trondheim becomes almost as close to Oslo by car as Arendal is today. HSR probably will take a lot of the high-end air traffic, if constructed. The total traffic is hard to estimate without going deeper into the subject, but to me an opening transit AADT of 7000-8000 does not seem unrealistic to me at all.


It is completely unrealistic. Figures regarding HSR cannot automatically be transfered to road travel, partly because such an animal would cut travel time Oslo-Trondheim to 2-2.5 hours... without the added "bonus" of a tiring 5-hour drive. A 125 kph average for the everyday driver isn't remotely realistic for a 500-km drive - even if a motorway ever came into being. In short: A rail link would make business commuting Oslo-Trondheim a possibility, a motorway wouldn't. Besides, experience from other countries show that HSRs can compete with air travel for medium-distance (400-800 kms) travel. Motorways cannot.

And this is even without touching on the most serious issue here, the environmental one. Making motorways to generate considerably more traffic is in my honest opinion a very bad idea. I don't disapprove of motorways as such, but there ought to be limits - and there are. As stated before, this will never happen. Partly because of local opposition, partly because of environmental opposition, partly because of the expensive nature of such projects and the fact that far cheaper solutions are more than adequate for the forseeable future.



54°26′S 3°24′E;24022828 said:


> The gap up to your 10 000 limit will most likely be filled a few years after opening; Norway being one of the few countries in Europe where both the economy and population is growing steadily. On most of the length there will be local traffic in addition to the transit traffic, of course. In order that the full benefit of the road should be realized, it is however important that also the least trafficated parts are improved. There are BTW quite a few sections on the US interstate system that still has lower than 2000 AADT.


The Interstate comparison is pointless, for several reasons. First, it's 50 years old and noone thinks infrastructure that way anymore. Actually, only the US ever did. Why? That's the second reason: The Interstate Highway program was a child of Cold War thinking and a cornerstone of American strategic thinking domestically. Third, the interstates were paid for by the federal government. Public spending on such a level doesn't happen in the current climate of rather extreme neoliberalism.



54°26′S 3°24′E;24022828 said:


> One problem with the current standards is that they will not improve transit travel times substantially compared with what we had 30 years ago, although safety probably will be better. A second problem is that the traffic growth always have been underestimated in the past, and the effect has been that roads have had to be rebuilt with only a few years between, which is a very expensive way of doing it. A third problem is that they do not at all take into account the fact that the cost of building a road, and hence profitability, of a project vary wildly. The cost of building a road in for instance Østerdalen and in an urban area is very different.


Mostly true, but it doesn't make a Oslo-Trondheim (or Oslo-Bergen) motorway more sensible.



54°26′S 3°24′E;24022828 said:


> Opinion polls are not elections. However, the current government won the narrowest defeat three years ago, in fact they did not even win the popular vote. Since then they have been behind the opposition almost all the time, currently the ratio is 38 to 62 %, and it has been so for a long time. FrP is the biggest party on the opinion polls steadily with more than 30 %, and I would say it is very likely that they will be part of the governing coalition some way or another in one year, like it or not.


I'm not going to get into the details of Norwegian elections, but the crux of the matter is the word "coalition". FrP won't get a majority of the vote, so they'll either remain in opposition (as a 20-25%-party in elections, 30%+ on polls) or face the terrible notion of cooperation in government, having to rely heavily on the bureaucracy they claim to hate (thus becoming a >10%-party once again...)



54°26′S 3°24′E;24022828 said:


> Although I do not like their politics on most issues, I actually think that the FrP politicians are extremely professional on a Norwegian scale. In any case, if the parliament actually decides something, things usually progress in Norway. The problem has historically been political indecisiveness, not bureaucrats. Do you seriously think that Vegvesenet would refuse to build roads if they are funded by the parliament to do so?


Professional? Well, professionally stupid, perhaps... Nonetheless, the most interesting aspect of right-wing populism is that when such groups win power, they are unable to deliver. The reason is simple: Populism requires popularity, obviously, and popular political measures are expensive. For left-wing populism, this isn't too much of a problem, since such groups state from the get-go that they'll fund new projects with public money gotten from taxation, mainly of businesses, the rich and luuxury items. This is basically how social democratic movements all over Europe started out and eventually changed politics fundamentally. Right-wing populism's fundamental problem is that it cannot do this: their entire extistence is founded upon the reduction of taxes and government interference.

All populists eventually face reality - the fact that they need money for their grand schemes. However, right-wing anti-government people like the FrP are in more serious trouble than the leftists who just do as they've promised all along and raise taxes. They'll either have to limit spending on schools, hospitals, infrastructure or commit political suicide by doing exactly what they've promised not to do - increase taxes or introduce tolling stations... This is why right-wing populism never has survived the test of government and why FrP won't build more roads than serious political parties and the Vegvesen won't get more money...



54°26′S 3°24′E;24022828 said:


> Basically, I don’t disagree with your priorities. Main highways with AADTs beyond 10000 should be built first. Many of these roads will anyway be a part of a national network, if ever realized. As argued above, however, motorways connecting the big cities would probably reach this AADT level in 25-30 years ahead. Trondheim-Oslo and Oslo-Kristiansand should probably be built before Oslo-Bergen/Stavanger. The former will not necessarily have higher traffic than a east/west-connection, but will certainly be cheaper to build. Also, it would also probably be a good idea, cost-wise and environmentally, to construct new roads in conjunction and concurrent with the proposed HSR lines, if those are every built. As you probably know, the HSR lines require a lot of landscaping, to a much higher degree than a motorway.


I don't want a motorway network throughout Norway. It's a waste of money and - more seriously - lays waste to the environment. That is not to say we shouldn't improve current roads and even build far more motorways than we currently do. But there has to be a limit. Also: promoting idiotic Interstate-like networks only makes it easier for those who oppose motorways even where they're needed and those who use liberalist rhetoric as a buffer against all forms of government spending. Luckily, the in-built conservativism of the consensus-based Norwegian political system will prevent such ideas from becoming reality. I'm often complaining about the slow and tedious political process, also in terms of major infrastructure projects, but in terms of the more fanciful ideas, such inherent restrictions are a good thing.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

*More Trondheim-Oslo stuff....*



ElviS77 said:


> I'm fed up, since this obviously is completely pointless. My only comment, thus, is this.
> 
> Afaik, the 80 kph across the Dovre plateau is a winter speed limit. If not, my mistake. And I haven't driven there since last summer, that is absolutely true. Nonetheless, since the section is one of the very best in Norway, with excellent overtaking opportunities throughout, there are few Norwegian highways where I'd go faster. The Østerdal has fewer overtaking opportunities, more police and more lorries, thus 95. Alvdal-Tynset: There is a ban on overtaking for about 5 of 24 kms, quite a few exits and a couple of junctions, a couple of 70 sections and even a speed camera. So I stand by my claim, yes.
> 
> The very fastest link is Rendalen, anyway...


Østerdalen/


Former Østerdalen 90 zones versus Dombås-Kongsvoll:
80/90: E6 across Dovre Mts is not 80 permanently (last winter's 80-signs were never removed), IMO, as idiotic as removing the 90-zones in Østerdalen, the real dangerous speeders drive way faster anyway. Afaik, it has never been 90 in the steep Dombås-Fokstua climb on E6. 
Overtaking poss: Except in the beginning and some short stretches after Atna overtaking poss. flourish along the whole Koppang -Alvdal route. A major difference between Dovre and Østerdalen is the mix of vehicles. As long as there are no steep hills, trucks (Østerdalen) usually drive around 85-90. Cars that usually drive significantly below the limit are either RVs or other private cars (Dovre), which are prevalent across Dovre. In addition, Dovre has both a steep ascent and descent, has worse curvature (see above), and during winter often worse weather.
Police: I have heard there is police, but during my approximately 130 drives along rv3, of which roughly 30 has taken place during the last couple of years, I have seen no cops Koppang-Alvdal, and only once (clearly visible in a long distance) Alvdal-Tynset. Across Kvikne (Tynset-Ulsberg) cops have been more common however. I have not driven as often across Dovre, but in any case I don't believe the number of cops is the best political argument.....

Alvdal-Tynset vs entire Dovre mts (Dombås-Kongsvoll):

No-passing zone is 2 km, not 5. If you are really unlucky, you will be slowed down 40 sek, as there are excellent passing opportunities both immediately before and after, but this happens only in 1 out of 10 trips.
70-zones: altogether less than 3 km on Alvdal-Tynset, will slow you down 30 seconds, how much town will you loose behind an RV or truck Fokstua-Dombås?
Exits/junctions: Plenty of these also on E6, including an national road (rv). That was the exuse for lowering the speed limit.



ElviS77 said:


> Since this is a different story, a second response: In terms of the east-west link: It seems as though the E16 will remain where it is. Which I DON'T approve of, my chosen corridor would be the rv 7/52. That might even be realistic, mainly because the east-west numbering isn't as set in stone as the E6 (only part of the rv 7 hasn't seen any change in numbering or status over the past decade).


Sorry, then I misunderstood you. Also rv 7/52 has significantly less traffic than rv 3, however.

BTW: It seems like I underestimated the current truck traffic at rv 3, it is already 500 AADT. Note also from the article that although the VP of the truck owner's association says that E6 is far more hilly and winding than rv 3, it is rv 3 he wants to improve.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

ElviS77 said:


> I agree. We might even see a transit AADT of more than 3000, perhaps even 4000, in 20-30 years time. Noone needs a motorway to deal with that kind of traffic. A 1+1/2+1 with a guardrail would make sense, however.
> 
> It is completely unrealistic. Figures regarding HSR cannot automatically be transfered to road travel, partly because such an animal would cut travel time Oslo-Trondheim to 2-2.5 hours... without the added "bonus" of a tiring 5-hour drive. A 125 kph average for the everyday driver isn't remotely realistic for a 500-km drive - even if a motorway ever came into being. In short: A rail link would make business commuting Oslo-Trondheim a possibility, a motorway wouldn't. Besides, experience from other countries show that HSRs can compete with air travel for medium-distance (400-800 kms) travel. Motorways cannot.


Read what I wrote. Without the HSR or motorway, the total traffic pax is estimated to be 16 000, which is quite a significant number. I did not argue that a lot of the high-end market would be transferred to the road, I said low-end. And on Trondheim-Oslo, the bussiness travel is a rather small minority. 

I don't see why Trondheim-Oslo cannot have an 120 limit in the future if the entire link has motorway-standard or narrow motorway standard on the least trafficated parts. Countries that beat us in terms of safety (Netherlands, Sweden, and UK) all have, or are in the process of getting, speed limits in this range. With 120 km/h, and the current distance (494 km), the trip will take 4hrs 7 minutes. By cutting a few curves, the trip can easily be done on 4 hours. Believe me, I have been flying a lot Trondheim-Oslo, and even without baggage, I have seldom been able to do the trip (address to address) shorter than 3 hrs, with significantly more hassel than a road trip. For all people living between the two airports, the gain of flying will be even less. In conclusion, yes, I lot of the lower-end market can be transfered to the car if proper roads are built.



ElviS77 said:


> And this is even without touching on the most serious issue here, the environmental one. Making motorways to generate considerably more traffic is in my honest opinion a very bad idea. I don't disapprove of motorways as such, but there ought to be limits - and there are. As stated before, this will never happen. Partly because of local opposition, partly because of environmental opposition, partly because of the expensive nature of such projects and the fact that far cheaper solutions are more than adequate for the forseeable future.


So all of a sudden you, that argue so strongly for transferring traffic to E6 from rv 3, causing a lot of uneccessary emissions and degradation of the local, much more vulnerable environment along the current E6, has become an environmentalist.

In any case, your argument is a shallow, rethoric one. Building proper motorways in rural areas actually reduces the total emissions according to a recent study by the Norwegian research organization Sintef, because the reduction in emissions per car will more than compensate the increase in traffic. Regarding Trondheim-Oslo, or Oslo-Bergen for that matter, you also have to take into account that a lot of the increase in road traffic would be due to traffic transfer from air travel. 

Some energy consumption facts for you, recalculated to liter diesel/km (collected by Vegen og vi):
Express bus (20 passengers): 0.013 l/km
Train (not HSR, which have roughly twice the value): 0.017 -0.03 l/km
Car (1.7 people):from .02 l/km
Electric car: 0.011 l/km
Air plane: 0.11 l/km

The train can be very environmently friendly if there is a surplus of renewable energu, which we dont have at the moment, so the latter value (0.03 l/km) is probably more relevant. Also the real energy usage of the electric car has to be increased by a factor of two in this case. Trains are great for local intra-city transport, as they are good for the local environment. However, on long-distance travel routes in Norway there should not live many people, so dust and sooth from traffic is not really an environmental issue. 

In conclusion, express bus is the most environmental friendly form of transport on longer travels in Norway, and emission is reduced a factor of almost 10 compared with air travel.



ElviS77 said:


> The Interstate comparison is pointless, for several reasons. First, it's 50 years old and noone thinks infrastructure that way anymore. Actually, only the US ever did. Why? That's the second reason: The Interstate Highway program was a child of Cold War thinking and a cornerstone of American strategic thinking domestically. Third, the interstates were paid for by the federal government. Public spending on such a level doesn't happen in the current climate of rather extreme neoliberalism.
> 
> Mostly true, but it doesn't make a Oslo-Trondheim (or Oslo-Bergen) motorway more sensible.


We might live in another time than when the interstates were built, but the economic facts remains:

The Swedes have a cost per m of motorway of 33 000. The cost of building a motorway network in Norway of around 2200 km using this meter price would be 72.6 billion NOK. You might argue that things always are more expensive in Norway, so let's increase that number to 200 billion NOK. That means 10 billion per year for 20 years. To put the number in perspective: The current cost side in the Norwegian national budget is around 800 billion NOK. Last quarter the Norwegian government invested 90 billion NOK, but lost 49 of these billions due to the bad market. Now, as I have pointed out before, investments in the mainland should be done using great care so the inflation does not increase too much, but don't tell me it is not possible.

The advantage of building such a network is 62 billion/year, according to bilaksjonen.no. Now, although it is seconded by the only economist who seems to really have been studying this in Norway, you might not trust this number, so assume the third is right, which probably only accounts for the reduced accident costs. Now, if we use the drasticly reduced benefit number (20 billion NOK), and a quite high cost number (2000 billion NOK), this investment will still give 10 % dividends per year. That is roughly the same as the stock market, but without any risk.





ElviS77 said:


> I'm not going to get into the details of Norwegian elections, but the crux of the matter is the word "coalition". FrP won't get a majority of the vote, so they'll either remain in opposition (as a 20-25%-party in elections, 30%+ on polls) or face the terrible notion of cooperation in government, having to rely heavily on the bureaucracy they claim to hate (thus becoming a >10%-party once again...)
> 
> Professional? Well, professionally stupid, perhaps... Nonetheless, the most interesting aspect of right-wing populism is that when such groups win power, they are unable to deliver. The reason is simple: Populism requires popularity, obviously, and popular political measures are expensive. For left-wing populism, this isn't too much of a problem, since such groups state from the get-go that they'll fund new projects with public money gotten from taxation, mainly of businesses, the rich and luuxury items. This is basically how social democratic movements all over Europe started out and eventually changed politics fundamentally. Right-wing populism's fundamental problem is that it cannot do this: their entire extistence is founded upon the reduction of taxes and government interference.
> 
> All populists eventually face reality - the fact that they need money for their grand schemes. However, right-wing anti-government people like the FrP are in more serious trouble than the leftists who just do as they've promised all along and raise taxes. They'll either have to limit spending on schools, hospitals, infrastructure or commit political suicide by doing exactly what they've promised not to do - increase taxes or introduce tolling stations... This is why right-wing populism never has survived the test of government and why FrP won't build more roads than serious political parties and the Vegvesen won't get more money...


Although I don't vote FrP myself, your rambling about FrP is not very relevant for what we are discussing here. I just want to point out that there is internationally no historic backing for your claim that right-wing governments last shorter than left-wing, quite the opposite. The reason is that there also is something called supply, and more importantly, efficiency in economic theory, and both tend to be higher in liberal economies.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

NiceGuy said:


> 4. There should be a straight road directly from Oslo to Åmotfors, either as motorway (red) or narrow 4-lane (yellow). By doing this, Swedish shopping will be only 20 minutes away from Oslo by car


Hm, at least 80 km in 20 minutes.....240 km/h :lol:


----------



## ElviS77

54°26′S 3°24′E;24702348 said:


> I don't see why Trondheim-Oslo cannot have an 120 limit in the future if the entire link has motorway-standard or narrow motorway standard on the least trafficated parts.


I didn't say that. I said that an average speed of 120 kph for the average driver for a distance of 500 kms is unrealistic. For one, most drivers would take a break or two. 



54°26′S 3°24′E;24702348 said:


> So all of a sudden you, that argue so strongly for transferring traffic to E6 from rv 3, causing a lot of uneccessary emissions and degradation of the local, much more vulnerable environment along the current E6, has become an environmentalist.


I have never argued for a transfer of traffic from Østerdalen to Gudbrandsdalen. However, I did say that the proposed new motorway and 2+1 E6 would probably steal some of the rv 3 traffic (given that the new road would be safer and the travel time not that much longer anymore), but that is a very different story...

I'm not going to debate your figures. Mostly because it's exceptionally boring, but also because for me to introduce other figures saying different things, won't change anything. I don't think the environmental issues of road construction as such will alter your position much either, nor will my wish for reduced emissions instead of reduced emission increases. Thus, it's far more interesting to look at what we can and can't expect in terms of road construction and why.



54°26′S 3°24′E;24702348 said:


> In conclusion, express bus is the most environmental friendly form of transport on longer travels in Norway, and emission is reduced a factor of almost 10 compared with air travel.


And express buses do not need motorways to function properly, 1+1 or 2+1 roads are more than adequate to deal with the traffic volumes we're talking about here.



54°26′S 3°24′E;24702348 said:


> The Swedes have a cost per m of motorway of 33 000. The cost of building a motorway network in Norway of around 2200 km using this meter price would be 72.6 billion NOK. You might argue that things always are more expensive in Norway, so let's increase that number to 200 billion NOK. That means 10 billion per year for 20 years. To put the number in perspective: The current cost side in the Norwegian national budget is around 800 billion NOK. Last quarter the Norwegian government invested 90 billion NOK, but lost 49 of these billions due to the bad market. Now, as I have pointed out before, investments in the mainland should be done using great care so the inflation does not increase too much, but don't tell me it is not possible.


I've never said it isn't possible. I've only said it's never going to happen.



54°26′S 3°24′E;24702348 said:


> Although I don't vote FrP myself, your rambling about FrP is not very relevant for what we are discussing here. I just want to point out that there is internationally no historic backing for your claim that right-wing governments last shorter than left-wing, quite the opposite. The reason is that there also is something called supply, and more importantly, efficiency in economic theory, and both tend to be higher in liberal economies.


I'm not going to talk economic or political theory here, mainly because I've only stated that POPULIST ideas work better for leftist governments and why they do so. Whenever right-wing populists get power, they tend to lose it rather quickly. More traditional coservative-liberal governments are a different kettle of fish altogether... but they don't promote massive public spending either. 

Typically, motorway networks currently developed are built and run by private companies, no matter what kind of government a country has got. These roads are of course tolled, and for toll roads to work, they'll either need high AADT numbers or a high toll with no alternative road link. Neither would apply to a Oslo-Trondheim motorway...


----------



## NiceGuy

ElviS77 said:


> Whenever right-wing populists get power, they tend to lose it rather quickly.


 You don't seem to understand how similar Danish Venstre is to Norwegian FrP. I don't consider any of them right-wing "populist", but Danish Venstre has built a lot of motorways in Denmark, and they have been re-elected 3 times since 2001. FrP and Danish Venstre even have the same immigration policy. Let's not discuss politics here though - this is not the right place.


----------



## NiceGuy

54°26′S 3°24′E;24702468 said:


> Hm, at least 80 km in 20 minutes.....240 km/h :lol:


 Your map must be messed up. The Swedish border is 50 km away. and you will only need 150 kph to get there in 20 minutes if we had a decent straight-line motorway in that direction. My no. 4 was more of a joke though. The real message I wanted to get across is that we should build a real motorway between Oslo-Kristiansand-Stavanger, and between Oslo-Trondheim. Oil revenue should be invested in infrastructure instead of overly generous disability pensions.


----------



## ElviS77

NiceGuy said:


> You don't seem to understand how similar Danish Venstre is to Norwegian FrP. I don't consider any of them right-wing "populist", but Danish Venstre has built a lot of motorways in Denmark, and they have been re-elected 3 times since 2001. FrP and Danish Venstre even have the same immigration policy. Let's not discuss politics here though - this is not the right place.


Venstre in Denmark is a rather traditional conservative party, the "farmer's party" over there. It's also an old party, and not a particularly populist one. And whilst I agree that political discussions as such don't belong here, I think the political reasoning behind infrastructure-related questions do. The Danes have built quite a lot of motorways the past 25 years, under both Social Democratic and Conservative rule. However, they have not at any point instigated a massive, extrabudgetary motorway construction effort, which is what's needed if we're to see 2000+ kms of motorway in Norway. Denmark, like Sweden, has had a more centralised system, and their infrastructure policies have thus been less influenced by the whims of (local) politicians. In my opinion, a far better solution, but it's not the way to "Motorway Norway". And that's a good thing.


----------



## Grauthue

In a Labor party meeting today Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg promised tens of billions of kroner more on development of road and railroad for the period 2010-2019.

http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/iriks/politikk/article2635315.ece

I kinda knew this would be coming, but its great to hear the man himself confirm it :banana:


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

ElviS77 said:


> If such a growth were to happen, quite a bit of it will have to come from immigration and higher birth rates in this part of the population. And they live in towns and cities, and the majority in and around Oslo.


Did you read my post at all? The split up in population between the regions have been quite stable for a very long time, and there is no reason, or indication in the current trends, that this is about to change.

To add to this post regarding your comment that "the majority" will move to Oslo: We had a population increase of 56 000 last year, only about 22 000 of the increase was in Oslo/Akershus. Interestingly, there was almost no net domestic immigration in Oslo, in this regard the city was far behind some other municipalies in Norway. 

Probably, the average growth will be somewhat lower than the trend we are seeing today, in which all historic and international experience indicates even less centralization.

Finally, centralization is dependent on public policies, like infrastructure. With enhanced infrastructure, the centralization also will be smaller.



ElviS77 said:


> "Most countries" is rather overstated, I'd say.


To be correct, I should probably say most (or almost all) other developed countries. Several developing countries also have impressive road networks, though.



ElviS77 said:


> And the problem is that our financial muscle hasn't been translated into much in terms of roads/proper railroads this far, and even though I believe that some improvements will be made, I don't see a massive motorway network anytime soon.


You are right about the past, unfortunately, but if you have at all paid attention to the public debate, lately, with the leading economics, labor unions, the industry and the leaders of almost all political parties in Norway, at least I am far more optimistic than I used to be.


ElviS77 said:


> I'm not pretending to be an expert on this, but as far as I understand the Vegvesen's figures, the cost per metre of road corresponds fairly precisely to the road profile. This makes sense to me, both because the cost of land and the work involved increases similarly. An increase from 14.5 to 20 m means approx 35% extra width.


No, the cost does not scale proportionally to the width of the road except in, for Norway, very restricted cases. There are many reasons for this:
1. Norwegian roads are usually elevated somewhat from the ground since they need a quite thick bed of crushed rock in order to avoid problems with freezing and thawing water: Hence several meters of roll-off is needed on both sides for safety reasons, and the width of the road is not proportional to the width of asfalt+barrier. 
2. The same is true whenever the road for some reason (usually curvature issues) has to go below the normal ground level.
3. The cost of safety features like crash barriers, signs and partly illumination is usually independent of asphalt width.
4. The largest cost when constructing elements like over and underpasses, bridges, road cuts etc. etc., elements which often are very important for the total cost of the road, is usually to get the right equipment and expertice in place, and within reasonably limits not very dependent on road width. 
5. Planning costs is usually also independent of width
6. On most of the stretches I believe 19 m could be an alternative to the broader motorway width, land costs will be close to zero as the roads go through desolate areas.
7. On many places in Norway, the road will go along slopes. With 2+2 it can be possible to separate the two directions, having them on different levels. With a 2+1 road, the whole 14.5 m width probably has to be on the same level, increasing leveling costs.

Hence, I believe that the cost difference would be far less than the 31 % difference the asphalt+barrier width proportion between 14.5 and 19 m indicates. Indeed, in the only published cost difference I could find between 1+2 and 4 lanes in Norway, E6 in Gudbrandsdalen, the difference were a couple of hundred million of a total budget of 5 billion, i.e. roughly 5 %. Just as for most news articles, this one was rather unaccurate when it comes to defining what the two alternatives actually mean, however.


----------



## ElviS77

54°26′S 3°24′E;25607562 said:


> Did you read my post at all? The split up in population between the regions have been quite stable for a very long time, and there is no reason, or indication in the current trends, that this is about to change.
> 
> To add to this post regarding your comment that "the majority" will move to Oslo: We had a population increase of 56 000 last year, only about 22 000 of the increase was in Oslo/Akershus. Interestingly, there was almost no net domestic immigration in Oslo, in this regard the city was far behind some other municipalies in Norway.


Yes, I read it. Doesn't mean I buy what you're writing outright. And the figures you present here sort of proves my point: about 40% of the increase happened in two counties with 17-18% of the country's total population. Add to this the increase taking place in the urban centres of Vestfold and Østfold plus the Drammen area, not all that much is left for the rest of the country. But I think we'll leave this here...



54°26′S 3°24′E;25607562 said:


> To be correct, I should probably say most (or almost all) other developed countries.


If you include those with toll networks planned and in construction, I agree. My main point is that very few countries have developed publicly funded networks in a short period of time. Also, the networks are, with a few exceptions, built in rather more densely populated areas. 



54°26′S 3°24′E;25607562 said:


> You are right about the past, unfortunately, but if you have at all paid attention to the public debate, lately, with the leading economics, labor unions, the industry and the leaders of almost all political parties in Norway, at least I am far more optimistic than I used to be.


Well, since all Norwegian politics basically are local politics, expect most of the promised increases to vanish into thin air as we face another tedious tug-of-war for funds between rail and road, city and country, north and south, east and west... And in a few years, another issue eclipses the infrastructure one as politicians' main priority. 



54°26′S 3°24′E;25607562 said:


> No, the cost does not scale proportionally to the width of the road except in, for Norway, very restricted cases. There are many reasons for this:
> 1. Norwegian roads are usually elevated somewhat from the ground since they need a quite thick bed of crushed rock in order to avoid problems with freezing and thawing water: Hence several meters of roll-off is needed on both sides for safety reasons, and the width of the road is not proportional to the width of asfalt+barrier.
> 2. The same is true whenever the road for some reason (usually curvature issues) has to go below the normal ground level.
> 3. The cost of safety features like crash barriers, signs and partly illumination is usually independent of asphalt width.
> 4. The largest cost when constructing elements like over and underpasses, bridges, road cuts etc. etc., elements which often are very important for the total cost of the road, is usually to get the right equipment and expertice in place, and within reasonably limits not very dependent on road width.
> 5. Planning costs is usually also independent of width
> 6. On most of the stretches I believe 19 m could be an alternative to the broader motorway width, land costs will be close to zero as the roads go through desolate areas.
> 7. On many places in Norway, the road will go along slopes. With 2+2 it can be possible to separate the two directions, having them on different levels. With a 2+1 road, the whole 14.5 m width probably has to be on the same level, increasing leveling costs.
> 
> Hence, I believe that the cost difference would be far less than the 31 % difference the asphalt+barrier width proportion between 14.5 and 19 m indicates. Indeed, in the only published cost difference I could find between 1+2 and 4 lanes in Norway, E6 in Gudbrandsdalen, the difference were a couple of hundred million of a total budget of 5 billion, i.e. roughly 5 %. Just as for most news articles, this one was rather unaccurate when it comes to defining what the two alternatives actually mean, however.


Again, I'm no expert, but this isn't what the Vegvesen said, at least a few years ago. I'll see if I can find the source. 

I'll also present a few more route descriptions, both the E134 and the much-debated rv 3 is coming up. I'll also see if I can find a few pictures/links from each route.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

ElviS77 said:


> Yes, I read it. Doesn't mean I buy what you're writing outright. And the figures you present here sort of proves my point: about 40% of the increase happened in two counties with 17-18% of the country's total population. Add to this the increase taking place in the urban centres of Vestfold and Østfold plus the Drammen area, not all that much is left for the rest of the country. But I think we'll leave this here...


Well, why don't we go back once more to your original claims:

"Almost every single one will settle in or around the Greater Oslo area"

Later you moderated yourself to saying that the majority will settle in the Oslo area. 

Well, 22/56*100=39 % is far from being even a majority. If you add Buskerud and Østfold, all of which is outside the Oslo urban area, and most of which is outside the Oslo labor-market, you still do not get above 50 %. Not even by the widest definition Vestfold can be considered as a part of the Oslo-area, and Vestfold btw has a growth below the national average. I did and do not deny, however, that the majority of the growth (57%) of the whole of Norway now is in the larger south-eastern part of the country (Østfold,Akershus, Hedmark, Oppland, Oslo, Buskerud, Vestfold and Telemark), which is why this region in a few decades probably will pass the 50 % mark of the whole population. My point is that the remaining 43 % of the increase last year, or 24 000 people, was along the coast of southern Norway up to and including the Trondheim-fjord.

My numbers are from official numbers from the SSB, all I have done is to extrapolate the current growth of the different regions into the future. SSBs own forecast (mean curve) shows a little bit less growth, and less centralization, including a healthy growth of Northern Norway. Whatever model you choose, both South-Eastern Norway and coastal Norway from far southern Norway to Trøndelag will have high population growth, and consequently also the need for transport between the regions will increase sharply. In either scenarios, the relative share of the the two regions will be a little more than 50 % for south-eastern Norway and a little more than 40 % for the coastal southern/central Norway at least until 2050.

Feel free to do your own interpretation of the facts, but do keep to the facts.



ElviS77 said:


> If you include those with toll networks planned and in construction, I agree. My main point is that very few countries have developed publicly funded networks in a short period of time. Also, the networks are, with a few exceptions, built in rather more densely populated areas.


There are quite a few example of rapid developments of transit networks have happened once the need is identified. Spain, USA, and Germany all more or less completed very impressive motorway networks in a 10-20 years span. Poland, Ireland, Greece and China seem to attempt the same today. And none of these countries had or have the economic wealth of Norway, and in the case of Germany and USA, they did not even have the traffic. Sweden, and partly Denmark, has used more time, but that only means we have more to catch up.



ElviS77 said:


> Well, since all Norwegian politics basically are local politics, expect most of the promised increases to vanish into thin air as we face another tedious tug-of-war for funds between rail and road, city and country, north and south, east and west... And in a few years, another issue eclipses the infrastructure one as politicians' main priority.


That is exactly why I call for a national plan, which local politics cannot stop as easily. The three largest parties of Norway now all call for greater independence for the road authorities, with more long-term funding. You may be right in your pessimistic analysis, of course, but that should not stop us fighting for a change.



ElviS77 said:


> Again, I'm no expert, but this isn't what the Vegvesen said, at least a few years ago. I'll see if I can find the source.


Another example from the top of my head was the harbor tunnel in Trondheim. It was said that a doubling of the road width would cost less than 25 % more.


ElviS77 said:


> I'll also present a few more route descriptions, both the E134 and the much-debated rv 3 is coming up. I'll also see if I can find a few pictures/links from each route.


I am looking forward to it


----------



## ElviS77

54°26′S 3°24′E;25714894 said:


> Well, why don't we go back once more to your original claims:
> 
> "Almost every single one will settle in or around the Greater Oslo area"
> 
> Later you moderated yourself to saying that the majority will settle in the Oslo area.


My actual claim was: "Almost every single one will settle in or around the Greater Oslo area, the remainder will settle in other urban areas like Stavanger/Sandnes, Bergen and Trondheim." Which I stick by. I also stick by the fact that more than 1.5 million people live within an hour's drive from Oslo.



54°26′S 3°24′E;25714894 said:


> Feel free to do your own interpretation of the facts, but do keep to the facts.


These are facts, your facts, in fact. 39% of the population growth to an area with 18% of the population...



54°26′S 3°24′E;25714894 said:


> Spain, USA, and Germany all more or less completed very impressive motorway networks in a 10-20 years span.


I said currently. The US and German ones are rather old, the Spanish was mainly EU funded.



54°26′S 3°24′E;25714894 said:


> Poland, Ireland, Greece and China seem to attempt the same today.


The Polish and Greek networks are toll roads built (to a large extent, at least) by private contractors, China at least has a few toll roads (don't know too much about their infrastructure policies...) and I thought the Irish roads were tolled as well (might be wrong, though).


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Nearly all Chinese expressways are toll roads.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

ElviS77 said:


> My actual claim was: "Almost every single one will settle in or around the Greater Oslo area, the remainder will settle in other urban areas like Stavanger/Sandnes, Bergen and Trondheim." Which I stick by. I also stick by the fact that more than 1.5 million people live within an hour's drive from Oslo.
> 
> 
> These are facts, your facts, in fact. 39% of the population growth to an area with 18% of the population...


The point is that the fact you boasting:

"39% of the population growth to an area with 18%". (it should be 39 % to an area with 23 %, BTW)

is not even remotely supporting your claim:

"Almost every single one will settle in or around the Greater Oslo area" (I do not object as strongly to the second part, although also the most rural counties are growing at the time, and will continue to grow according to SSB) 

Your claim certainly is not true today, 39 % is not even a majority, and it won't be true in the future, even in a 40+ years perspective. By assuming that all counties will have the same relative growth in the next 40 years as in 2007, Oslo plus Akershus will get 1.08*(1+0.021/1.08)^42-1.08=1.377 M new citizens by 2050.  However, Norway will in total get 3.027 M new citizens. I.e., Oslo+Akershus will receive approximately 45 % of the population growth in Norway until 2050, which is a very far cry from "Almost every single one". As already mentioned, the SSBs official mean prediction shows an even smaller share of the growth to Oslo/Akershus.

As pointed out repeatedly now, my point is that by extending the 2007 numbers to 2050, coastal Norway (excl. the Oslo-fjord area) will get 1.322 M new citizens, or 44 % of the growth, and that this will increase the need for transit traffic greatly in the decades ahead. It should not be very difficult to accept.



ElviS77 said:


> I said currently. The US and German ones are rather old, the Spanish was mainly EU funded.


You did not say currently. It is true that the Spanish network was partly EU funded, but most Spaniards I have spoken to denies that EU was or is the major source of funds. In any case, for Norway, the funding is not really the issue.



ElviS77 said:


> The Polish and Greek networks are toll roads built (to a large extent, at least) by private contractors, China at least has a few toll roads (don't know too much about their infrastructure policies...) and I thought the Irish roads were tolled as well (might be wrong, though).





ChrisZwolle said:


> Nearly all Chinese expressways are toll roads.


Sorry, I actually did not notice the "public funded part" in my haste to finish off and do something more productive. However, I do not think this is an important point. In any case, at least the European countries in question, Poland, Greece, and Ireland only have the tolls as supplementary funding. From what I have been able to gather, public funds are responsible for paying approximately 2/3rds of the motorway development in these countries. For instance, public money pay for 69 % of the Egnatia motorway of Greece, in Ireland only 8 out of 26 billion Euro in the current transport21 program will come from PPP (project financing) . If we had similar funding, we could do a lot also in our country. 

It should further be noted, that none of the mentioned have a level of taxation of car use and ownership close to what Norway has, currently more than 55 billion NOK per year. This is 22 000 NOK per car per year, or 2 700 Euro. This is in sharp contrast to particularly China. True, all the motorways, and many other roads, are tolled, but otherwise car use is in fact sponsored, with for instance subsidized car use.

As will be further elaborated above, I do not think toll financing is a good idea. However, let's assume that 2/3rds of the road will be public financed as in the European cases discussed above, and apply it for for instance the much debated Østerdalen stretch. If the cost will be 50 000 kr/km, a third of the cost will be 4.8 billion NOK. 5 % interest per year would then correspond to 660 000 kr/day in tolls. Even Elvis77 seem to agree that an AADT of 4000 is realistic for this 290 km of road, with some sections having higher traffic. Pesonally I believe the traffic potential is much higher, at least 7000 in only a 10-year perspecive if the road is upgraded, partly by traffic transfer from the Trondheim-Oslo air-route, which currently is the 6th busiest in Europe. However, let's assume 4000 for now. With a flat rate this means a toll of 165 NOK per car, if for instance the approximately 700 future trucks pay double, the rate will be 140 NOK, or 0.48 NOK/km, or 0.06 Euro/km. Of course, you have to add a bit for toll stations and down-payment of the road. Anyway, I think most people would pay such a sum rather than being delayed with an hour or more for an alternative road. 

In addition, many of the proposed roads will have significantly higher traffic than the Østerdalen road, and by introducing a flat per km rate for all motorways like some other countries have, there can be some cross-financing between high-trafficated and low-trafficated roads. This is a principle that is already used in Norway when it comes to gasoline-pricing and paying for the airport-infrastructure.


In any case, I think toll is a stupid way of financing roads, because:
1. This is an expensive, and unsocial, method of taxation
2. It makes people search for alternative, often less efficient and environmental friendly routes, and hence undermine the original purpose of a highway development.
3. Toll financing to some degree relieves the government for the responsibility, but also the control, of the infrastructure development of the country. 

Leaving infrastructure investment to the market often leads to solutions that in the long run probably are not the most efficient or sustainable. Again, this is indeed what seems to happen in extreme cases such as in China.

If the goal is to reduce emissions, it would be better to increase the cost of fuel, ideally with a fixed sum dedicated to infrastructure development. However, in order to have the desired effect, the same tax also needs to be introduced for air-travel, high-speed ferries and train transport with diesel engines. However, experience show that the tax have to be increased a lot in order to have any effect on car use in Norway. Like toll roads, a higher fuel tax is also highly unsocial, and will hit the ones that in practice have no alternative to the road, people and companies in rural areas. the hardest.


----------



## ElviS77

54°26′S 3°24′E;25924666 said:


> The point is that the fact you boasting:
> 
> "39% of the population growth to an area with 18%". (it should be 39 % to an area with 23 %, BTW)
> 
> is not even remotely supporting your claim:
> 
> "Almost every single one will settle in or around the Greater Oslo area" (I do not object as strongly to the second part, although also the most rural counties are growing at the time, and will continue to grow according to SSB)
> 
> Your claim certainly is not true today, 39 % is not even a majority, and it won't be true in the future, even in a 40+ years perspective. By assuming that all counties will have the same relative growth in the next 40 years as in 2007, Oslo plus Akershus will get 1.08*(1+0.021/1.08)^42-1.08=1.377 M new citizens by 2050. However, Norway will in total get 3.027 M new citizens. I.e., Oslo+Akershus will receive approximately 45 % of the population growth in Norway until 2050, which is a very far cry from "Almost every single one". As already mentioned, the SSBs official mean prediction shows an even smaller share of the growth to Oslo/Akershus.


Sorry, I couldn't be bothered to check the actual statistics and, thus, didn't realise that Akershus already was at 500 000+. So 23% it is. Because of urbanisation and people moving to the inner part of Eastern Norway, btw... Still, my point is that "in and around the Greater Oslo Area" means an area with 1.5+ million. Whereas your 39% is just Oslo+Akershus (1.08 mill). My claim still stands, even though it started out basically as rhetoric, not science. The SSB's front page - official national statistics - is rather conclusive: http://www.ssb.no/befolkning/ (unfortunately only in Norwegian here, but you get the PICTURE ). Furthermore, they confirm my urbanisation claim here: http://www.ssb.no/emner/02/01/10/beftett/ (also Norwegian, probably possible to find an English version for those really interested...). Nonetheless, not all that interesting, and I'll leave it here....



54°26′S 3°24′E;25924666 said:


> Sorry, I actually did not notice the "public funded part" in my haste to finish off and do something more productive. However, I do not think this is an important point.


Fair enough, but since this is MY basic point (and imho, a very good one) about when, where and how motorway networks happen today, it's worth paying attention to... Sooo... The Chinese motorways are tolled, as are much of the French, Greek, Spanish, Polish, Romanian and even a considerable amount of the US ones. Plus many others. A few other countries have a specific motorway tax. In fact, the countries whose massive motorway networks were government funded (the UK, the US, Germany...) completed the vast majority of their main arteries decades ago. Currently, even the Germans look to road taxation.

Still, the current economic crisis might just change a bit of this, at least. Keynes will make a comeback, and that might just influence infrastructure as well. Even in Norway. However, even this will not lead to 2000+ kms of motorway up here, simply because cheaper alternatives are more than adequate. A proper 2-lane highway reaches capacity at AADT 15000-20000, and the far safer 1+1/2+1 version has an even higher limit. Most of the network you suggest won't reach those figures in 30 years, even if the more extreme prognoses come to be. And I truly believe that people who propose unrealistic motorway schemes contribute to slowing down the planning and construction of a reasonable and way more realistic highway/motorway system. Which we need. Desperately.


----------



## ElviS77

And for those of you truly interested in Norwegian population statistics, click the "English" icon top right...


----------



## Þróndeimr

ElviS77 said:


> click the "English" icon top right...


Unless you understand Norwegian of course...


----------



## ElviS77

Þróndeimr said:


> Unless you understand Norwegian of course...


Of course


----------



## ElviS77

*E134 - first all-year east-west link*

Before I get started, I must admit that it's been a long while since I drove this road, particurarly the westernmost bit. However, not that much has happened in 10 or 15 years, so I guess I'm still a qualified tour guide scribbler.. But if one or two of you Norwegians out there find mistakes, feel free to correct them.

Buskerud:

The E134 is an all-Norwegian European route, and its eastern starting point is Drammen, a good 40 kms west of Oslo. The first 55 kms is in Buskerud county, which nature-wise (at least here) isn't that special. The first 20 kms runs just outside Drammen and its suburbs, then it crosses fields and lower hills to Kongsberg and onto the border with Telemark. Almost all the way to Kongsberg, it's a relatively new and decent 2-lane road. Then it narrows and runs through the town, and continues as a not-so-decent 2-laner on the other side. Speed limits between 50 and 80. Plans include a 2- or 4-lane bypass of Kongsberg, further into the future we might see the Drammen-Kongsberg road dualled into a motorway.

Telemark:

Now, towards the mountains. Close to 200 kms in Telemark, and the landscape varies from hills and valleys with settlements, villages and towns, then more serious montains and eventually the Haukeli plateau. All in all, a truly interesting driving experience... That is, if you're not fed up by the questionable road quality. Mainly 2-lane highway, but with narrower sections and plenty of tight corners and steep hills. A few minor improvements have been made, but nothing substantial. 50-80 limit here as well. There are several plans: Shortening of the Notodden-Seljord road by a 10+ km tunnel is the most obvious. Also, improvement of sections, some want a new Notodden-Kongsberg road, but the most important is the new mountain crossing (I'll get back to this...)

Hordaland:

The 100+ kms in Hordaland are truly spectacular, and even more so if you have the time to avoid the old, narrow and dark tunnels at Haukeli and Røldal plateaus and instead take the old road. But even going through the tunnels, there is plenty to experience: Mountains, fjords, ravines, waterfalls... The road has been upgraded in parts, mainly through tunnel construction, but that takes some of the excitement out of the drive. Now, most of the road is some form of 2-lane highway, but you'll still get plenty of hairpin bends and long, steep hills. Particularly at Røldal. Quite a few tunnels as well, the old 60s tunnels (which made wintertime crossing possible back in the day) are overdue for replacement, but there are also a couple of brand new ones. Limit is still 50 to 80, I believe. The most important plan is, of course, the new Haukeli/Røldal crossing. A brand new alignment will remove the old tunnels and the hairpins. Still, it will remain a high-mountain road with long tunnels. 

Rogaland:
The remaining 50+ kms is in Rogaland, and it runs along fjords and through villages and towns. A busier section this, but not quality road anyway. A pleasant drive, but not truly spectacular nature. The road is mainly everyday 2-laner, with narrow spots. The final 15 kms to Haugesund is better 2-laner, but busy. Limit 40-80 kph. Here, too, there are plans. The last bit (10-25 kms, depending on who you are to believe, will eventually become motorway, a few other sections are already approved as 2+1 expressway. 

This road's main problem is that noone can really decide what it's for. True, it's part of the shortest Oslo-Bergen link, but it's also part of the shortest Oslo-Stavanger link. If one were to go for it as the former, it would have to make a detour to the north at Røldal, whereas the latter would require some form of southern-bound derailment. Even though some people are promoting particularly the Bergen link, it doesn't look likely to happen. There's too much politics involved, at least six counties are fighting over who gets what in terms of east-west road (and possibly rail) links. The end result? The E134, at least, gets very little...


----------



## ElviS77

*Rv 3 - Oslo-Trondheim in the shortest possible time...*

If there's one thing those of us arguing the past weeks and months actually agree on, it is that the rv 3 is part of the shortest Oslo-Trondheim link (or actually, it isn't: the county+national road 30 Rena-Tynset through Rendalen is normally a few minutes faster as there is virtually no traffic, but it's impractical for anyone without local knowledge...). So, the 3. What's my beef with this road, since I - at least according to some - slag it off all the time..? In truth, none, really:

Hedmark:

The vast majority of its 290 km is in Hedmark county. The first 30 kms runs across low hills and through some of the best agricultural lands in Norway, then you'll get approx 180 kms in the wide valley along the Glomma river. You'll see an incredible amount of pine trees, a few settlements and - in the northern section - a few mountains. Pleasant enough, but it tends to get rather boring. The climb onto the Kvikne plateau is interesting, as is the plateau itself, but at merely 700 metres above sea level, it's not a true mountain even in Norway. The road starts out as a 2-lane expressway for about 20 kms, the remainder is a decent and mainly straight 2-lane highway. The southern half runs through a few settlements, further north there are virtually no such things before Alvdal and Tynset. About 90 kms used to be 90 kph, but currently, only the expressway maintains that speed limit. Entire section varies from 50 to 90. Plans? A few. Most obvious and going to happen is the 10+ km motorway Løten-Elverum. It is also likely that the 30 kms from there to Rena will become expressway in the not too distant future, but for the remainder, it's anyone's guess. Some want a motorway, I maintain that's highly unlikely. Much more likely is a 8.5-10 m widening of the current road, but there are concerns, since such a road would only be marginally safer than the excisting one, if at all. Widening it into a direction-separated expressway (or Swedish-style "mötesfri landsväg... which I don't like) is a better option, particularly since there is one or more local roads for much of the section already. Nonetheless, apart from a few local improvements and the southern section, it's very much anyone's guess.

Trøndelag:

The final 15 kms is through Trøndelag. Not all that much to see, across a narrow bridge, up a steep hill, through a village, and then you meet the E6 again, about 90 kms south of Trondheim. The road is in serious need of a makeover, apart from the brand new 2 kms at Ulsberg, a completely new alignment is necessary. Speed limit 50-80. Plans? None remotely concrete, but the entire section will eventually be replaced. Best guess by a 10 m highway/expressway, even though I'd like to see a 1+1/2+1.

I hope everyone agrees this is a fair presentation of the current state. And for anyone going to northern parts of Norway, it makes sense to take the 3, either going north or south - unless you possess a quality map and plenty of time, then I'd consider several alternatives. Not as nice as the E6, but still faster. And something else.


----------



## ElviS77

I'm still looking for pictures (haven't got that many myself, I'm afraid). Also, I'll provide a few guides for the remaining Norwegian E routes and a few important national roads, quite possibly starting with the tourist route par excellance - the rv 17. But that won't happen today...

On a different note: Norway is currently in the midst of a bureaucratic makeover in terms of road infrastructure. By 2010, only the current trunk routes (E roads and national roads with green numbering) will remain national. The rest of the national roads (with a few exceptions) will, together with former county roads, be the responsibility of the regions. There are a few obvious problems here: 1. National roads have their numbers signposted en route, county roads do not. 2. National roads have a slightly more uniform standard than county roads, for one they're all hard surface. 3. The numbering scheme was sensible once, but the introduction of "green" trunk routes has messed things up already - they're not numbered 1-10/20/25 or anything like that... Now, when county roads also will get numbers, things will get even worse. Since: 4. There are clear indications that the National Road Admniistration feels that clearing up the numbering mess in order to make road numbering reflect the reform they've spent millions on, is a far too expensive exercise. My advice to automotive tourists: Come next summer or, if arriving 2010 and beyond, stick to the E routes. It's not just up to us to change those...

Btw, if anyone gets more information on this, please post it here. The Vegvesen home page is anything but helpful, it seems as if not even they know what will happen...


----------



## Ingenioren

They wouldn't be as stupid as to remove the road numbers?=P That's just silly....


----------



## ElviS77

Ingenioren said:


> They wouldn't be as stupid as to remove the road numbers?=P That's just silly....


Afaik, that's not the intention. As stated, my facts are rather sketchy, but it seems to me as though the likely outcome is that the county roads will be included in the excisting numbering scheme. Exactly how they're going to achieve this, I do not know, and if they don't make some changes, it's going to become a rather messy situation.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

I hope it doesn't become as messy as in France with their Departement road numbers being implemented on former National roads. (like in: RN 1 becomes RD 1001).


----------



## ElviS77

ChrisZwolle said:


> I hope it doesn't become as messy as in France with their Departement road numbers being implemented on former National roads. (like in: RN 1 becomes RD 1001).


I'll get to that in my new thread on the topic! Imo, the French have made a bit of a mess of a system that could have been really clever.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

ElviS77 said:


> Sorry, I couldn't be bothered to check the actual statistics and, thus, didn't realise that Akershus already was at 500 000+. So 23% it is. Because of urbanisation and people moving to the inner part of Eastern Norway, btw... Still, my point is that "in and around the Greater Oslo Area" means an area with 1.5+ million. Whereas your 39% is just Oslo+Akershus (1.08 mill). My claim still stands, even though it started out basically as rhetoric, not science. The SSB's front page - official national statistics - is rather conclusive: http://www.ssb.no/befolkning/ (unfortunately only in Norwegian here, but you get the PICTURE ). Furthermore, they confirm my urbanisation claim here: http://www.ssb.no/emner/02/01/10/beftett/ (also Norwegian, probably possible to find an English version for those really interested...). Nonetheless, not all that interesting, and I'll leave it here....


In my world, "almost every single one" is close to 100 %. I keep repeating myself, but you don't seem to get it:

You don't reach even 50 % by adding Østfold and Buskerud to Oslo and Akershus. 
Even in the long term (2050), if the current strong growth continues, these counties will receive only 56 %, which means that 44 %, of the growth will be elswhere. SSB assumes a slightly lower growth rate  in their most likely scenario, and believes that in 2030 less than 36 % of the growth will will be in the Oslo area, less than 47 % in Oslo-area + Østfold and Buskerud, but more than 41 % along the coast. This compares with the relative growth shares of 41 % (Oslo-area), 53 % (Oslo-area + Østfold and Buskerud) and 44 % (coastal Norway) if the growth of 2007 is extrapolated to 2030.
Dependent on the scenario you choose, there will be between 1 M and 1.3 M more people in coastal Norway in 2050. My point all along is that this will increase interregional traffic, something you for some reason do not want to admit.

I have never argued against that Norway is urbanizing. However, for the interegional traffic, this is not important, as the most marginal of the proposed motorway corridors are going through empty areas anyway, i.e. more or less all traffic is thru traffic. In fact, there are indications that increased urbanization leads to more interregional traffic, since urban dwellers are more mobile, have more spare time which they prefer to spend on the countryside or with relatives in other parts of the country. This is certainly a trend we have seen over the last decade, despite heavy urbanization, the traffic on the main trunk roads have increased the most, whereas the traffic on urban streets have been far less.

I am not terribly interested in rethorics. You don't have to be scientific, but a reasonably backing in facts, at least after they have been presented to you, don't hurt....



ElviS77 said:


> Fair enough, but since this is MY basic point (and imho, a very good one) about when, where and how motorway networks happen today, it's worth paying attention to... Sooo... The Chinese motorways are tolled, as are much of the French, Greek, Spanish, Polish, Romanian and even a considerable amount of the US ones. Plus many others. A few other countries have a specific motorway tax. In fact, the countries whose massive motorway networks were government funded (the UK, the US, Germany...) completed the vast majority of their main arteries decades ago. Currently, even the Germans look to road taxation.


You insist on partial toll financing, and disregard the fact that the amount Norwegians already pay in indirect road tax would pay down the complete motorway network in four years or so, or that the Norwegian economy, unlike those listed above (with the partial exception of China, where car use is heavily subsidized), is running at a gigantic surplus. OK. However, I showed above that toll financing combined with public money are feasible also for a Norwegian motorway network development. And, most countries with similar geography and level of development (Finland, Sweden, Canada, and mostly USA), have completed their long-distance network without toll, for reasons listed above. And again, the fact that other developed countries got their road network decades ago means that we should hurry even more...


ElviS77 said:


> Still, the current economic crisis might just change a bit of this, at least. Keynes will make a comeback, and that might just influence infrastructure as well. Even in Norway. However, even this will not lead to 2000+ kms of motorway up here, simply because cheaper alternatives are more than adequate. A proper 2-lane highway reaches capacity at AADT 15000-20000, and the far safer 1+1/2+1 version has an even higher limit. Most of the network you suggest won't reach those figures in 30 years, even if the more extreme prognoses come to be.


What do you mean with capacity? If you mean that the traffic is often delayed below the speed limit, I agree with you that 15000-20000 is the sensible limit. There are almost no roads that run at capacity defined this way in Norway except in urban areas. included the few 2-lane roads that are currently under upgrade to motorway standard. I have never claimed so and that is not the issue. But 1+1/1+2 roads would hardly be an improvement in this capacity. 

If the road's capacity should meet up to a reasonable cruising speed of modern cars, around 120, hardly any Norwegian roads have it. Most of them never will or should either, but it would save the nation a lot in transport costs if the major interregional trunk roads are built to such a standard. Time between 65 km/h and 120 km on a typical interregional travelof 400 km is 3 hours and 20 minutes, and the extra delays we currently have in Norway cost us a lot. Also the environment is better off with straighter roads without all the stop and run, curves and hills. 

The real issue that a road network in Norway should tackle IMO is that:

 Undivided roads are very dangerous above a traffic of a few thousands AADT
In order to get transfer of traffic from the air traffic to ground transport and reduce emissions by a factor 5 or more, speed of travel is important, hence the road should be motorway
 Except for some of the third-phase roads, I believe all the motorways in my wish-list have the potential for 7000 AADT or more in a 10 years horizon, and significantly higher later on due to strong population growth. Currently, the traffic growth is much higher than the population growth. 
 The price difference between a narrow motorway (2+2) and 1+2 roads is in the region of 10 %. What typically has been the case in Norway is to first build a 1+2 and then expand it to a motorway after a decade or two. That is considerably more expensive, and trends in population and traffic growth indicates that higher standards are needed soon anyway.
 The economic benefit of a motorway network may be as high as 60 billion NOK/year. There are hardly a better investment the nation can make.

We have been through this several times now, so please see earlier posts in the thread for more details regarding these points.


ElviS77 said:


> And I truly believe that people who propose unrealistic motorway schemes contribute to slowing down the planning and construction of a reasonable and way more realistic highway/motorway system. Which we need. Desperately.


Well, we have tried your way for more than 40 years now, you can see where that has lead us, compared with for instance Denmark who has had a clear vision for their transport network. Not pointing out that some roads are more important than others, with an ultimate goal of motorway standard, will give the funding politicians continued opportunity to prioritize the road in their own backyard.



ElviS77 said:


> E134 -Before I get started, I must admit that it's been a long while since I drove this road, particurarly the westernmost bit......


Thanks for the overview. With rather recent experience with most of this road I can confirm that not much has happened. It should be noted, however, that the Jondal tunnel is approved, which will really open up E134 as the most viable Oslo-Bergen alternative. E134 is already the most trafficated East/West route, I believe.



ElviS77 said:


> If there's one thing those of us arguing the past weeks and months actually agree on, it is that the rv 3 is part of the shortest Oslo-Trondheim link (or actually, it isn't: the county+national road 30 Rena-Tynset through Rendalen is normally a few minutes faster as there is virtually no traffic, but it's impractical for anyone without local knowledge...).


This was a fairly unbiased and good overview . I guess I have to try the Rendalen road (rv 30) soon, but since it is slightly longer, and I have feared for the standard, I have not done that so far. In addition, traffic delays are seldom a problem on rv 3, but perhaps it was police traffic you were thinking of.... The current rv 30 used to be the main route a couple of decades ago, actually. Any drivers that tries rv 30 should remember to continue on rv 3 north of Tynset, unless they want the detour to the world heritage listed mining town of Røros (recommended!).



ElviS77 said:


> I'm still looking for pictures (haven't got that many myself, I'm afraid).


I am not in the habit of photographing while I drive, but a quick search on google images, and this is what I found for instance for rv 3:
























Beware visitors, Norway is the country of the lowest speed limits and highest fines of the world.































'
















(I have myself waited for a looong time after a similar incident on rv 3...)
































Another dual truck gridlock across a narrow bridge...



ElviS77 said:


> Afaik, that's not the intention. As stated, my facts are rather sketchy, but it seems to me as though the likely outcome is that the county roads will be included in the excisting numbering scheme. Exactly how they're going to achieve this, I do not know, and if they don't make some changes, it's going to become a rather messy situation.


I agree, if at all they bother to number the county roads. And your facts are probably sketchy because nothing is decided. However, it should be noted that the regional reform is a bit controversial, and a new government may abolish the regional adminstration level altogether, in which case there will probably be no need to change the numbering. In principle I however think it is a good idea to divide the trunk road further from the other national roads, as this probably in the long run will give a better and long needed focus on the trunk roads.

BTW, all county and municipal roads are numbered also today, but their respective numbers (fvxxx and kvyyy) are not signposted.


----------



## ElviS77

54°26′S 3°24′E;26027052 said:


> I am not terribly interested in rethorics.


Fair enough.



54°26′S 3°24′E;26027052 said:


> You don't have to be scientific, but a reasonably backing in facts, at least after they have been presented to you, don't hurt...


Which I do on the former and don't on the latter. But let's just leave it, statistical use and abuse is still boring.



54°26′S 3°24′E;26027052 said:


> You insist on partial toll financing, and disregard the fact that the amount Norwegians already pay in indirect road tax would pay down the complete motorway network in four years or so, or that the Norwegian economy, unlike those listed above (with the partial exception of China, where car use is heavily subsidized), is running at a gigantic surplus.


Again: Please comment on what I'm actually saying instead of what you think I say or wish me to say. I don't insist on anything toll-related, but the world's governments seem to. I'm no particular fan of toll roads and have said so before, but I can't change reality. But I'm slightly more optimistic now that the Friedmanian werewolves have suffered a serious blow: government control and funding might just become fashionable again.



54°26′S 3°24′E;26027052 said:


> Well, we have tried your way for more than 40 years now, you can see where that has lead us, compared with for instance Denmark who has had a clear vision for their transport network. Not pointing out that some roads are more important than others, with an ultimate goal of motorway standard, will give the funding politicians continued opportunity to prioritize the road in their own backyard.


I do believe in a better infrastructure, but I don't believe in motorways where they're not needed and I certainly don't believe that they're going to happen. And again, I'm not going to look for tons of statistics to support my claims, since it was proven some time ago that it didn't change anything. However, in a political landscape like ours, I truly believe that promoting moderate realism might just change things (we are very much a consensus nation of reform, and not revolutionary...), whereas promoting massive motorway schemes will stir up so much opposition and bad feelings that even more realistic projects will suffer in the process. And since we're back to square one - again - I think I'll leave this as well. At least for a while.



54°26′S 3°24′E;26027052 said:


> Thanks for the overview. With rather recent experience with most of this road I can confirm that not much has happened. It should be noted, however, that the Jondal tunnel is approved, which will really open up E134 as the most viable Oslo-Bergen alternative. E134 is already the most trafficated East/West route, I believe.


The latter is certainly true, but again, largely because even drivers haven't made up their mind about the road either (apart from those going to Haugesund, of course...). It's "stuck in the middle", so to speak. I wouldn't mind seeing it as the main Oslo-Bergen link, but I believe it's doomed because of serious opposition from too many lobbyists from counties further north. I guess we'll have to wait and see.



54°26′S 3°24′E;26027052 said:


> I guess I have to try the Rendalen road (rv 30) soon, but since it is slightly longer, and I have feared for the standard, I have not done that so far. In addition, traffic delays are seldom a problem on rv 3, but perhaps it was police traffic you were thinking of...


Well, you need to go down the entire Rendalen, down to Rena, not just the rv 30 to Koppang. You take the county road on the eastern side of Storsjøen down to Rena. A bit twisty in parts along the lake, south of the lake it's straight as an arrow. The entire section is actually a couple of kms shorter than the rv 3, and a far more pleasant drive. It's even more scenic. And with the added benefit of no police whatsoever, of course.. 



54°26′S 3°24′E;26027052 said:


> I agree, if at all they bother to number the county roads. And your facts are probably sketchy because nothing is decided. However, it should be noted that the regional reform is a bit controversial, and a new government may abolish the regional adminstration level altogether, in which case there will probably be no need to change the numbering. In principle I however think it is a good idea to divide the trunk road further from the other national roads, as this probably in the long run will give a better and long needed focus on the trunk roads.


Well, the only thing that seems not to be sketchy, is the fact that the Vegvesen regional reform (already partly implemented, remember...) is continuing. I don't think a new government would change that a few months before the new system is to become operational. I even believe that the reform is necessary, the current numbering scheme is rather messed up. But if they're going to do this, they should do it properly. For instance: 1-25 plus E routes - national routes, 26-99 - key regional routes, 100-999 - regional and important local routes. 



54°26′S 3°24′E;26027052 said:


> BTW, all county and municipal roads are numbered also today, but their respective numbers (fvxxx and kvyyy) are not signposted.


I know.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

ElviS77 said:


> I do believe in a better infrastructure, but I don't believe in motorways where they're not needed and I certainly don't believe that they're going to happen. And again, I'm not going to look for tons of statistics to support my claims, since it was proven some time ago that it didn't change anything. However, in a political landscape like ours, I truly believe that promoting moderate realism might just change things (we are very much a consensus nation of reform, and not revolutionary...), whereas promoting massive motorway schemes will stir up so much opposition and bad feelings that even more realistic projects will suffer in the process. And since we're back to square one - again - I think I'll leave this as well. At least for a while.


OK, I think we have said all that can be said on the issue. As a final remark I would just say that we certainly need both a motorway network and probably also HSR, the former due to economy and environment, the latter due to environment and quality of life. I believe I have argued quite convincingly for this earlier in the thread, and won't repeat it again. Also, after this summer's debate, it should be clear that if it is one area of politics where Norwegians clearly are ready for a radical change, it is infrastructure. Most parties, except the radical left, seem to have understood this more or less. A couple of elections ago the hospitals were the great theme for the election, then it was the eldery, last time it was child care. In all these issues something were delivered. Next time I hope it can be infrastructure and education... A radical reform does not have to be that controversial, except, again, for the radical left, as long as the corridors are kept out of the most sensitive areas and it is combined with a real effort on PT in the cities.



ElviS77 said:


> Well, you need to go down the entire Rendalen, down to Rena, not just the rv 30 to Koppang. You take the county road on the eastern side of Storsjøen down to Rena. A bit twisty in parts along the lake, south of the lake it's straight as an arrow. The entire section is actually a couple of kms shorter than the rv 3, and a far more pleasant drive. It's even more scenic. And with the added benefit of no police whatsoever, of course..


Oh, I see, the county road. Now that you mentioned it I actually remember that I not that long ago considered exactly that road, but once I got to Rena I did not feel I had the time to check out a new road. Part of the reason was, as I said, that I feared that in particular the county road should be substandard. I also thought I had heard someone saying that there should be more speed limit zones on the Rendalen road, but when checking www.viskart.no (a great, but somewhat slow, engine btw), that does not appear to be the case. Also the traffic in Rendalen is below 1000 AADT at most points, even below 500 at the least trafficated stretch.

The Rendalen road is around 7 km shorter, as you said, which normally equals around 5 minutes. However, both the engines I have tried says that the road through Storelvdal/Alvdal (Rv 3) is about 6 minutes shorter. I wonder why. Anyway, Rendalen is not, and will probably never be the favored truck route, unless something is done with the 700+ m altitude pass behind the Tron mountain. 



ElviS77 said:


> Well, the only thing that seems not to be sketchy, is the fact that the Vegvesen regional reform (already partly implemented, remember...) is continuing. I don't think a new government would change that a few months before the new system is to become operational. I even believe that the reform is necessary, the current numbering scheme is rather messed up.


You have to remember that this is not a primarily a Vegvesen reform, but a political "regional" reform, and this is a reform that the two largest opposition parties, the Progress party and the conservative party, are very much against. They want to have a two-level system of governence, without a regional level. "Regional" is in quotes because the current government actually did not manage to agree on any regions, and rather kept the old counties (which are very much smaller than the Vegvesenet regions btw). Hence, the "regional" level remains weak, and would be quite easy for a new government to erase it as it does not have much popular support. 

However, you maybe right, they will perhaps be able to introduce new numbering first, and it would be a good reform if it does not turn to costly. Hopefully, they can simultaneously declassify some of the green roads; currently I believe there are quite a few that does not deserve this status.


ElviS77 said:


> I know.


I knew you would


----------



## ElviS77

Dan1113 said:


> If there is one thing Norway is bad at, it's building roads and tunnels!


Actually, we're not. We're actually really good at this (and Swedish gloaters should take a closer look at the Hallandsås railway tunnel before expressing their glee...). However, we're lately - unfortunately - very good at not doing the proper geological surveys as well, partly because there are several difficult areas in which roads are built, but mostly because contractors are busy making the most of rather limited resources.


----------



## IceCheese

Ingenioren said:


> The Akershus part is very uncertain when will be built aswell, their still negotiating diferent alternatives with the locals...


Don't ever mess with the locals! Actually the municipal of Ås is seen as the main reason for delays here. Crazy SP-politicians... Though the path mostly is set, there is major opposition in AH county to building it at all. They either way will preasure to get the new railway from Ski-Oslo first eitherway. If the road get's built now, it may be as a widened dual-lane with central concrete barriers, with some new paths around urban zones.
There is little reason to belive someone in Akershus will finance anything, as it is mostly only the municipals of Indre Østfold that wants this.


----------



## Maxx☢Power

ElviS77 said:


> Actually, we're not. We're actually really good at this (and Swedish gloaters should take a closer look at the Hallandsås railway tunnel before expressing their glee...). However, we're lately - unfortunately - very good at not doing the proper geological surveys as well, partly because there are several difficult areas in which roads are built, but mostly because contractors are busy making the most of rather limited resources.


Actually, most roads in Norway - both old and new - are of mediocre quality, so I agree with Dan1113 on that one.


----------



## Oslo 5

*Don’t confuse quality and standard*



Maxx☢Power;27762888 said:


> Actually, most roads in Norway - both old and new - are of mediocre quality, so I agree with Dan1113 on that one.


You shouldn’t confuse standard and quality. Norway has many old roads; many of which were built in the Golden years of road building in Norway, i.e. 1960 until 1978, back when the NPRA (SVV) got as much money as they asked for from the government. But of course those roads were built according to the standards of theirs time. In the 1980s the traffic exploded and the funding dried up (with the exception for the early 1990s under Mr. Opseth as Minister of Transport). Funding for maintenance has suffered most, and today many roads are in a state of disrepair. This has little to do with their initial quality. New roads in Norway are of a very high quality, probably among the highest in the world when one are considering materials used, ITS-systems, traffic safety, environmental standards, side areas, -but when considering road standard, especially on secondary roads, the design could have been better.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

I think what ElviS77 means is that Norway is very good with digging/boring rock tunnels and in geology in general. This is certainly true, experience from huge road-, railway and not at least hydropower projects have lead to a very high level of expertice in this field among Norwegian entrepeneurs. The Lærdal tunnel, for instance, was built at an amazing price of 38 kNOK/m. This is why there are rarely any international bids for larger Norwegian tunnel boring contracts.

The expertice in geological surveys is also among the highest in the world in Norway, partly due to the offshore industry. However, geological surveys are very expensive, and in most cases the rock in Norway is of high quality. However, doing the survey on the cheap means that you sometimes, like in Steinkjer, are in for some nasty surprises.

Regarding the road intrafrastructure, I think everyone on this forum agree that it is shit in Norway. It has never been good either. True, in the "golden age", as you referr it to, quite a few rural roads were widened to a better standard than they had before. However, comparing this with what was built in other industrialized countries in the same period, for instance our close neighbors, you quickly see that what was built in Norway was substandard from the start. This is particularly true for the trunk roads, as these were mostly not built to any higher standard than a dead-end roads leading to towns of a few houses. 

For more about Norwegian road history, you can perhaps start reading this article (in Norwegian)


----------



## Maxx☢Power

Ok, I misread your post ElviS77, sorry. I agree there is some expertise in some niche areas like you mention, but they're only valuable in extraordinary circumstances, and it's not like tunnels elsewhere aren't of equal or better quality.

Still, the overall quality is, as 54°26′S 3°24′E says, shit. There are few places in Europe that doesn't have a better overall road quality, and that was what I was trying to say. I'm sure the people at SVV are capable of creating wonderful things if the state wasn't so stingy and anti-roads, so that remains the real problem.

As for the standards/quality argument; I see no difference. It is what is is, whatever it was meant to be from the start. Even if you do differentiate between the two, they're still shit.


----------



## Oslo 5

*Standard and quality*

There are huge differences between standard and quality. Most Norwegian roads has low standard because they were built like that (lots of reasons, porkbarreling among them, Norway has build extremely many ‘bridges to nowhere’). It is possible to build a road with low standard but of high quality, as the Norwegian Motorway class B). Older roads were built with low standard and low quality, as rural highways which ends up as mud paths during early spring (luckily few of those left today). New motorways in Norway (of today) have rather high quality and high standards. But unfortunately, many high quality roads end up as roads of low quality due lacking of maintenance funding. My point is that it won’t help building better roads; if we don’t maintain them afterwards.

And btw, I know extremely well all about the sorry state of Norwegian road network and the history of it as I work for the DPR, NPRA.

A road of low quality and low standard:










High quality and low standard (one lane):


----------



## ElviS77

Maxx☢Power;27815206 said:


> Ok, I misread your post ElviS77, sorry. I agree there is some expertise in some niche areas like you mention, but they're only valuable in extraordinary circumstances, and it's not like tunnels elsewhere aren't of equal or better quality.


Better or not better... Depends on how and what you evaluate, but generally speaking, we're leading the pack in terms of tunnel engineering simply because we've got loads and loads of experience. Some criticism has, however, been directed at safety equipment in Norwegian tunnels, but that is a different story – even though the criticism is warranted in quite a few cases. And: We know how to build roads, railroads, bridges etc as well, experience and competence is not the problem there either.



Maxx☢Power;27815206 said:


> Still, the overall quality is, as 54°26′S 3°24′E says, shit. There are few places in Europe that doesn't have a better overall road quality, and that was what I was trying to say. I'm sure the people at SVV are capable of creating wonderful things if the state wasn't so stingy and anti-roads, so that remains the real problem.


Well, the worst problem isn't even an anti-road stance, the average road infrastructure spendings the past 50 years have matched those of Denmark and Sweden. The real issue is a combination of regionalism, lack of planning for the future and a bad network to begin with. We’re seeing a couple of fine examples of the first problem as we speak: local politicians in one of three local councils might very well end up delaying a desperately needed new section of the E39 for years. Why? Because they want a long tunnel instead of the Vegvesen proposed alignment (the other local councils have accepted the alignment…). The E6 north of Minnesund may very well face a similar delay (though local opposition is more uniform there). Nonetheless, both are examples of late-stage delay procedures that simply would not happen in other countries. That is not to say that our politicians probably should have realised that building roads in Norway is more expensive and, thus, fund better, but it is a far more complex issue than just "incompetent Norwegian idiots who don't fund their roads"...



Maxx☢Power;27815206 said:


> As for the standards/quality argument; I see no difference. It is what is is, whatever it was meant to be from the start. Even if you do differentiate between the two, they're still shit.


The quality of our network is a result of politics and history, not engineering capabilities. We can and we do. You may for instance consider spectacular bridges and our - albeit few - new motorways. Some of the worst infrastructure construction blunders of late have happened in Sweden – the Hallandsås railway tunnel has been in construction for more than a decade, but is still years away from completion due to far worse geology than predicted. Another example is the collapse of a section of E6 under construction north of Uddevalla a couple of years ago. Does this mean that the Swedes are incompetent engineers who “meant it to be from the start”? I don’t think so, but accidents, lapses of judgement and blunders do occur.


----------



## ElviS77

Oslo 5 said:


> My point is that it won’t help building better roads; if we don’t maintain them afterwards.


Road maintainence is a major concern in many countries (quite a bit of the US interstate network is in a sorry state, for instance), but in a country like ours, where weather is a massive issue, it becomes even more important. Rain and frost do serious damage and worsen damage done by traffic. On top of this, the fact that far too many roads "built" in the past 30-40-50-60-70 years are mere improvements of older local roads, the situation gets even worse: lack of proper drainage, exposure to rock falls, avalanches and flash floods... Pretty soon there isn't much asphalt left. And that's before even touching the fact that these roads often are dangerously incapable of dealing with modern-day traffic loads.


----------



## GuyFromMoss

Huge motorway project opens next week. The E6 will then be motorway all the way trhough the county of Østfold. This is about 60 kms. This means that the E6 will have motorway-standards all the way from Oslo to the Swedish border.(excluding a short section at Vinterbro, where a tunnel will open next fall).









































As you can see, not all of the road is finished, but it will get ready next week, after 7 years of construction.

Source: http://www.f-b.no/article/20081118/NYHET/366931425#


----------



## Verso

^ Why so long?


----------



## Timon91

60 kms is quite a long section on difficult terrain. And one big problem and your project is delayed for a year or two. I'm not surprised it took 7 years.


----------



## IceCheese

I will also guess that the financing and total construction capacity are crucial. Btw, is Eidet-tunnelen really going to have 5-lanes? What a complete waste that it they built that tunnel with three lanes... Norwegian long-term planing.:bash:


----------



## Ingenioren

^ Yep it's 3 lanes southbound, for a few kms including Eidet-tunnel. For Norway this is pretty fast, thinking of how long E18 trough Vestfold, E18 trough Østfold, E16 in Akershus will take to complete.... Another remark is that on this particular E6, they built long bridge-crossings in the 70s that where easy to addapt to a 4 lane road (Can be easily seen Mosseporten - Råde), while the bridges from the 90s they built short bridges that required a demolition or large rebuilding (Sarpsborg - Halden).... ;P

71 people lost their lives on E6 trough Østfold in the period 1995 - 2005, no lives has been lost on the new motorway stretches.


----------



## ElviS77

I just made a brief calculation... If everything goes according to plan, we'll see in excess of 500 kms of motorway by 2015. That is including E6 Dal-Kolomoen, E18 in Vestfold and Østfold, bits and pieces in the Bergen and Trondheim areas and the first part of E16 in Sandvika, but not including 4-lane dual lane carriageways like Ring 3 in Oslo or the new rv 2. It is by no means enough, but still a considerable improvement over the current state of affairs. I'll get back to a few points about possible strategies and obvious mistakes in construction or planning later this weekend. I might even return with a further road guide or two. Next in line: the remaining E routes, rvs 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, 13 and 17. The latter first, I guess, since it's a tourist road extraordinnare.


----------



## Grauthue

ElviS77 said:


> I just made a brief calculation... If everything goes according to plan, we'll see in excess of 500 kms of motorway by 2015. That is including E6 Dal-Kolomoen, E18 in Vestfold and Østfold, bits and pieces in the Bergen and Trondheim areas and the first part of E16 in Sandvika, but not including 4-lane dual lane carriageways like Ring 3 in Oslo or the new rv 2. It is by no means enough, but still a considerable improvement over the current state of affairs. I'll get back to a few points about possible strategies and obvious mistakes in construction or planning later this weekend. I might even return with a further road guide or two. Next in line: the remaining E routes, rvs 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, 13 and 17. The latter first, I guess, since it's a tourist road extraordinnare.


Is it not more? Vegvesnet claimed 505,5 km including dual carriageways (I assume) before 2009 is over. And we don't have that much dual carriageways. Kløfta - Nybakk, Ring 3, parts of E18 in Østfold (Askim to Mysen?). What gives?

http://www.tu.no/bygg/article179603.ece


----------



## Ingenioren

Yes, they've opened a lot of new roads the last 6 years you know, included in this number is E18/E18 Østfold, E16 Bærum, E18 Agder, Roads around Bergen and Stavanger, E18 Vestfold, Rv2, Tønsberg ring, Tromsø tunnel, E6 Romerike, E6 Trøndelag etc. What roads will be completed before 2015? Finished E18 Vestfold, E6 Hamar, small stretches in the cities, it seems like it's slowing down and maybe more will be spent on paying down Ops projects and other loan-projects and maintenance on existing stuff. 

Something i'm wondering about when Norway builds 4 lane roads, they are always with roadlights, while in most countries these roads don't have them. It strikes me as a bit useless to have these on such good quality roads with few accidents... Any toughts about that?


----------



## ElviS77

Grauthue said:


> Is it not more? Vegvesnet claimed 505,5 km including dual carriageways (I assume) before 2009 is over. And we don't have that much dual carriageways. Kløfta - Nybakk, Ring 3, parts of E18 in Østfold (Askim to Mysen?). What gives?
> 
> http://www.tu.no/bygg/article179603.ece


That's a bold claim, but it might be correct, if one includes everything. Let's see what dual-lane carriageways we do have... Rv 2. In Oslo there's Ring 3, rv 163, rv 4, rv 190, parts of E18 and E6. The E18 in and around Kristiansand, parts of the E39, E16 and rv 555 in and around Bergen, the E6 south of and around Trondheim (the E18 in Østfold is a motorway, btw) plus some shorter sections in and around urban areas (rv 44, rv 300, E8 Tromsø, for instance). Add to that the excisting 300 kms of motorway and the 60+ kms due to open next year, you're probably there.


----------



## ElviS77

Ingenioren said:


> Yes, they've opened a lot of new roads the last 6 years you know, included in this number is E18/E18 Østfold, E16 Bærum, E18 Agder, Roads around Bergen and Stavanger, E18 Vestfold, Rv2, Tønsberg ring, Tromsø tunnel, E6 Romerike, E6 Trøndelag etc. What roads will be completed before 2015? Finished E18 Vestfold, E6 Hamar, small stretches in the cities, it seems like it's slowing down and maybe more will be spent on paying down Ops projects and other loan-projects and maintenance on existing stuff.
> 
> Something i'm wondering about when Norway builds 4 lane roads, they are always with roadlights, while in most countries these roads don't have them. It strikes me as a bit useless to have these on such good quality roads with few accidents... Any toughts about that?


We're in for some interesting years, because even if we don't get massive PPP schemes or radically increased public fundings for road construction (which I don't believe will happen), I'm cautiously optimistic. Recessions, generally, aren't bad for infrastructure investment, and I seriously believe that we'll see a real increase in actual construction. As I said earlier, I'll comment a bit more later. When it comes to our brightly lit motorways, I think they're a good idea, particularly in the wintertime.


----------



## IceCheese

As Norway is such a dark country, it is right to have road lights. Light snow blowing around can also make it difficult to see the road. Though all highways are fenced in, there is also the risc of animals on the road. I think highway lighting is great.


----------



## ElviS77

Ingenioren said:


> They didn't want to raise the speed-limit because it would increase car-emissions....


Well, this is only partly the case, Norwegian limits have very much been linked to road safety - as I'm sure you know - and at the same time, motorways have been a rare commodity and continuous motorway sections longer than about 40 kms haven't excisted for more than a few years. The 100 limit was really a quantum leap, and since that is less than 10 years old, I think we should be patient. Also, in my experience, average driving speeds on Norwegian motorways aren't that much lower than for instance on Swedish, Dutch or Greek highways. 

With the new sections just opened or due to open in a few years, I'll bet we'll not just see a 110 (or, dare I say it, 120...) limit, but possibly even a designated motorway limit. If we're really lucky, when more and more 2+1/1+1 divided expressways become operational, we might even see a 100 limit on those. However, non-divided highways or expressways with a limit above 80 kph will become a rarity - apart from in some rural areas.


----------



## ElviS77

*Extra funds for Norwegian roads*

http://www.regjeringen.no/nb/dep/sd...dar-kroner-til-opprusting-og-u.html?id=543741

As the government tries to deal with the consequences of the financial crisis, road network improvements might just become more realistic. 
Currently, we're talking about 1.4 billion kroner (about 150 million euros), and the bulk will be spent on avalanche protection and other safety issues and pedestrian lanes, but some eight highway projects will be started earlier than expected. Not the massive spending some perhaps wanted, but it shows a will to use oil revenues to defeat the crisis.


----------



## IceCheese

ElviS77 said:


> Well, this is only partly the case, Norwegian limits have very much been linked to road safety - as I'm sure you know - and at the same time, motorways have been a rare commodity and continuous motorway sections longer than about 40 kms haven't excisted for more than a few years. The 100 limit was really a quantum leap, and since that is less than 10 years old, I think we should be patient. Also, in my experience, average driving speeds on Norwegian motorways aren't that much lower than for instance on Swedish, Dutch or Greek highways.
> 
> With the new sections just opened or due to open in a few years, I'll bet we'll not just see a 110 (or, dare I say it, 120...) limit, but possibly even a designated motorway limit. If we're really lucky, when more and more 2+1/1+1 divided expressways become operational, we might even see a 100 limit on those. However, non-divided highways or expressways with a limit above 80 kph will become a rarity - apart from in some rural areas.


I would love to see this too, but I'm a bit skeptical with the many new stretches that get built as "narrow highways". I don't think they will get or can support more than at most 100 km/h as top speed. The standard is, in general, a bit cheap..


----------



## Dan

ElviS77 said:


> http://www.regjeringen.no/nb/dep/sd...dar-kroner-til-opprusting-og-u.html?id=543741
> 
> As the government tries to deal with the consequences of the financial crisis, road network improvements might just become more realistic.
> Currently, we're talking about 1.4 billion kroner (about 150 million euros), and the bulk will be spent on avalanche protection and other safety issues and pedestrian lanes, but some eight highway projects will be started earlier than expected. Not the massive spending some perhaps wanted, but it shows a will to use oil revenues to defeat the crisis.


Saw the list for both road and train. Wish it had been more money! In most other countries this would have been nice but Norway really needs to improve these areas anyway, so more would have been great.


----------



## ElviS77

IceCheese said:


> I would love to see this too, but I'm a bit skeptical with the many new stretches that get built as "narrow highways". I don't think they will get or can support more than at most 100 km/h as top speed. The standard is, in general, a bit cheap..


Well, full motorways have a 3.5 m lane width and at least 1.5 m wide shoulders (total width 19 m+), much the same as you see in Sweden. They have no problems with 110 kph, even 120 is seen around Uppsala. I have driven French autoroutes that are not much wider, with a 130 limit, and I'd consider that fairly safe. The narrow profile expressways, with 3.25 m lanes and a narrow shoulder, are unlikely to see limits higher than 90 or possibly 100 kph, but they're not very common, and hopefully, that will remain the case on outer-urban main roads (for 60 kph urban routes, this standard makes sense, though).


----------



## ElviS77

Dan said:


> Saw the list for both road and train. Wish it had been more money! In most other countries this would have been nice but Norway really needs to improve these areas anyway, so more would have been great.


Absolutely, but I don't think extraordinary fundings outside normal budgets are the way forward. We need more money on a regular basis, still, this could be a starting point.


----------



## IceCheese

ElviS77 said:


> Well, full motorways have a 3.5 m lane width and at least 1.5 m wide shoulders (total width 19 m+), much the same as you see in Sweden. They have no problems with 110 kph, even 120 is seen around Uppsala. I have driven French autoroutes that are not much wider, with a 130 limit, and I'd consider that fairly safe. The narrow profile expressways, with 3.25 m lanes and a narrow shoulder, are unlikely to see limits higher than 90 or possibly 100 kph, but they're not very common, and hopefully, that will remain the case on outer-urban main roads (for 60 kph urban routes, this standard makes sense, though).


Still find it cheap


----------



## Dan

The E4 north of Stockholm pretty much has no shoulder now for a good 20km!


----------



## Morsue

And is 70-90 kmh on that stretch.


----------



## Ingenioren

There's a stretch on the Swedish side of E6 around Dingle/Rabbalshede that has 110 km/h limit and no shoulders...  I think it's 18,5 ?


----------



## ElviS77

Ingenioren said:


> There's a stretch on the Swedish side of E6 around Dingle/Rabbalshede that has 110 km/h limit and no shoulders...  I think it's 18,5 ?


Yes, it's 18.5, but with a wider median than on 19-metre motorways in Norway, thus making the shoulders virtually non-existent.


----------



## Ingenioren

I'm guessing those who have never driven in Norway, finds it hard to imagine the road-standard for the richest country in the world:
Riksvei 48 (A regional road.):


















Riksvei 49 (Also regional):









Route 45, prefered route Oslo - Stavanger if you dare:


----------



## ChrisZwolle

What are the traffic volumes on such roads?

In NL, such roads, known as "Erftoegangsweg" are allowed to have 6.000 vehicles per day.


----------



## Jeroen669

I think "riksvei" doesn't say too much with densities like in (the biggest part of) Norway, the road number is more like a guideline for long-distance travellers. Why should there be a standard size, when roads are (/can be) very quiet and when rough nature makes building new roads difficult, or at least very expensive?


----------



## ElviS77

ChrisZwolle said:


> What are the traffic volumes on such roads?
> 
> In NL, such roads, known as "Erftoegangsweg" are allowed to have 6.000 vehicles per day.


It varies quite a bit. Often we're just talking about an AADT of 100-500, but it's by no means uncommon to see 1500-2000, and even busier sections (perhaps as high as 5000) do excist on one-lane roads. I'm not absolutely certain about the roads depicted, but that part of the rv 45 is rather quiet. The 48 and 49 are busier, but at least the former is gradually improved. However, the insanity of this improvement is that it doesn't take place from one or both ends, meaning that you'll get the worst sections (for instance the 3.2 metre wide depicted section through the village of Tysse - said to be the narrowest "riksvei" in Norway) in between decent 2-lane bits and a couple of new, quality pieces of road.


----------



## ElviS77

Jeroen669 said:


> I think "riksvei" doesn't say too much with densities like in (the biggest part of) Norway, the road number is more like a guideline for long-distance travellers. Why should there be a standard size, when roads are (/can be) very quiet and when rough nature makes building new roads difficult, or at least very expensive?


You're partly correct, but "riksvei" generally refers to roads of some regional significance. In addition, since most of the country is off limit to trains, these roads are used by buses and HGVs. The official policy is that a "riksvei" should be at least 6.5 metres wide (though many aren't). 

However, the latest reform to hit our shores will from 2010 make only trunk roads (the current "stamvei" - E routes plus other roads with green numbers - and a few other important roads) the new "riksveier". The other "riksveier" will be county roads - "fylkesveier" along with the current county roads. Since county roads currently have a very different numbering system to the national roads, it's anyone's guess what will happen.


----------



## Ingenioren

I find it very hard to believe that there will be no further separation between what we consider unimportant farm roads, now Fylkesvei - no numbers signed, and importantant intercity and regional routes - where numbers are important for finding your way, now Riksvei... A lot of the current riksvei doesn't make a lot of sense, but most of them still do, and needs to be numbered - especially the numbers from 5 to 98...


----------



## ElviS77

Ingenioren said:


> I find it very hard to believe that there will be no further separation between what we consider unimportant farm roads, now Fylkesvei - no numbers signed, and importantant intercity and regional routes - where numbers are important for finding your way, now Riksvei... A lot of the current riksvei doesn't make a lot of sense, but most of them still do, and needs to be numbered - especially the numbers from 5 to 98...


I'd like to see a total remake of the numbering system now, since they're reworking the official status of so many roads anyways... Something like this would perhaps make sense:
1. National routes - 1-30 plus E numbers ("green" roads)
2. Important regional routes - 31-99
3. Regional/important county routes - 100-999
and possibly
4. remaining county routes - 1000+


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

Ingenioren said:


> I'm guessing those who have never driven in Norway, finds it hard to imagine the road-standard for the richest country in the world:
> ....
> 
> Route 45, prefered route Oslo - Stavanger if you dare:


Thanks for the nice, and illustrative pictures! Is that really rv 45? It looks very much like the Suleskar road to me, which is a stretch of county road in between the two lengths of rv 45. As far as I know, this road was built in conjunction with hydro power schemes up there, and was never meant to be the main highway between Oslo and Stavanger. I even think the Suleskar road is closed during winter. Due to the very hilly nature of this Oslo-Stavanger route, which crosses something like 5 rather steep valleys, this will never be the preferred Oslo-Stavanger route, except for summer tourists, for which the road is highly recommended because it is very scenic.

In my opinion it is a more serious problem that even some of the most important highways (like E39 and E6) in Norway still are of similar standard in places.


ElviS77 said:


> You're partly correct, but "riksvei" generally refers to roads of some regional significance. In addition, since most of the country is off limit to trains, these roads are used by buses and HGVs. The official policy is that a "riksvei" should be at least 6.5 metres wide (though many aren't).


Local drivers of course knows which roads that are suitable for instance when driving long trucks, and often makes large detours to avoid the worst stretches of the Norwegian road network. However, foreign drivers using their GPS often run into trouble.

Unfortunately, narrow roads is not the only thing that foreign truckers have to cope with. A more serious problem is that many of them is neither skilled or equipped for driving on sometimes slippery Norwegian winter roads. Last week we had a tragic accident involving a German truck on the E6 north of Trondheim. 








I don't want to jump to any conclusions, but it is clear that no Norwegian drivers would drive with such tyres during winter time, and when the road is slippery trucks are required to put on snow chains as well.











ElviS77 said:


> I'd like to see a total remake of the numbering system now, since they're reworking the official status of so many roads anyways... Something like this would perhaps make sense:
> 1. National routes - 1-30 plus E numbers ("green" roads)
> 2. Important regional routes - 31-99
> 3. Regional/important county routes - 100-999
> and possibly
> 4. remaining county routes - 1000+


I like the principle, but in my opinion it should suffice to constrain national routes between number 1-9, optionally including the E-numbers. As I have claimed before, I think there are currently too many "green" roads, and they only seem to multiply, which means that the politicians never will be able to prioritize the most important roads.

PS: I tried the Rendalen road some time ago. You were right, it was very straight at places, but at others it was very hilly and curvy, and everywhere it was quite narrow. In conclusion I would not recommended this road over rv 3 except for people who want to try their new sports car (in summer time)....


----------



## Ingenioren

It is Suleskar road (that's why i wrote "route" instead of riksvei, altough the riksvei part is just as narrow at times) and it's closed in winter, but during the summer it is definatly the fastest road to Stavanger. 

There should be a an information with free maps to foreign truck drivers on the borders regarding routes that are recommended and not...


----------



## Ingenioren

More terrible roads from Norway:




























Rv50:




E134, Haukeli:





Bergen - Gjøvik in 5 minutes:





It's all nice and enjoyable in the summer, but the summer is short...


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

^^ :lol:hno: The problem is that if you can't drive E6, the only (better) alternative is Sweden....

Sorry that I was a bit unclear regarding the Suleskar road. It is certainly the fastest route during summer if you drive a small car, but you burn a lot of fuel due to all the hills, and many stretches (including the actual rv 45, as you point out) is not suitable for neither trucks or RVs.

Edit: Seems like our posts crossed.....


----------



## ElviS77

54°26′S 3°24′E;32229570 said:


> I like the principle, but in my opinion it should suffice to constrain national routes between number 1-9, optionally including the E-numbers. As I have claimed before, I think there are currently too many "green" roads, and they only seem to multiply, which means that the politicians never will be able to prioritize the most important roads.


Well, a 1-30 system the way I see it would consist of 23 non-E-routes and include stuff like the Ring 3 in Oslo. Nonetheless, I agree, at least in part: There are a few strange "green" routes. Still, keeping roads national becomes an issue as well... 



54°26′S 3°24′E;32229570 said:


> PS: I tried the Rendalen road some time ago. You were right, it was very straight at places, but at others it was very hilly and curvy, and everywhere it was quite narrow. In conclusion I would not recommended this road over rv 3 except for people who want to try their new sports car (in summer time)....


Well, it's certainly not for everyone (particularly not for truckers...) and I don't think I'd use it in the winter, but in summer conditions, it's nice and quick and relaxing.


----------



## IceCheese

According to what has been told about the new transportation plan for 2010-19, most of the money will go to railroad-projects. The money for roads will mostly be used on maintainance and safety efforts.

It's official. The government believes Norwegian roads are good enough as they are..:bash:


----------



## Ingenioren

There will be muchmuch much more tolls


----------



## IceCheese

^^Most likely. Read a couple of days ago about toll booths and how in some of them the trafic pays more than 100% of the costs. It doesn't help that most of the operating companies are some corrupt bastards either:bash:


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

ElviS77 said:


> Well, a 1-30 system the way I see it would consist of 23 non-E-routes and include stuff like the Ring 3 in Oslo.


Ring 3 is a very important and in Norwegian terms highly trafficated road, but it serves local traffic and hence should not be included in the Stamveger (or new Riksveier, if you like). Vålerenga and Ekeberg tunnel systems should be included, however.



ElviS77 said:


> Nonetheless, I agree, at least in part: There are a few strange "green" routes. Still, keeping roads national becomes an issue as well...


Seems like FrP and Høyre wants a rematch regarding the new county road concept and keep most of the roads national. It will be exciting to see how the elections go this fall......



IceCheese said:


> ^^Most likely. Read a couple of days ago about toll booths and how in some of them the trafic pays more than 100% of the costs. It doesn't help that most of the operating companies are some corrupt bastards either:bash:


Of course, every project with "100 %" toll financing is in essence sponsoring the government, directly through VAT and indirectly through income taxes of the construction companies and their employees.


----------



## ElviS77

The latest "National Transport Plan" was presented this week. It is supposed to represent infrastructure priorities for the next decade, but as most Norwegians know, things have a remarkable tendency to change from year to year... Generally, the rail proposals have gotten a favourable reception, in terms of road, it's been more of a mixed affair. I'm not getting into much of this for now, instead, I'll give a brief resume of the main ideas: about 230 kms new motorway will be built and the E6, E39 and E16 will get special attention. It's supposed to be a massive step forward, even though many important projects will remain in 2020.

Personally, I think we need more than this, but it's difficult to see how we're going to get it. The right-wing Progress Party's ideas are, predictably, way out in space (2000+ kms of motorway construction), and they're not particularly interested in compromises, either. The centrist Liberals and Christian Democrats are reasonably happy, whereas the Conservatives have their own ideas - it's just that they're not all that good at presenting them to the people or their potential government partners (whomever they may eventually be...). 

(The way I see it, a completely and utterly unlikely grand coalition between the Conservatives and the Labour Party would be the only way further forward, infrastructure-wise.)


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

Just to supplement Elvis77 a little...

The national transport plan traditionally is revised every four years in Norway, roughly half a year before the next general election in Norway, a convenient time for the ruling politicians to present their infrastructure plans for the next 10 years period. The timing is quite unfortunate, to say the least. First of all, policians are not particuarly thrustworthy before elections, and that a project is in the plan, hence does not necessarily mean that it will be completed within the time frame of the plan. This is particularly true for projects of the last 6 years of the plan. Secondly, a study has shown, the projects that are actually put into the plan, are not those that are most beneficiary for the society, but those that are located in counties where votes are most worth, i.e. either in counties where the votes actually count more (in Norway, there are roughly half the number of votes behind each member of parliament compared with Oslo), or in counties where the ruling coalition has marginal seats. Also, this hunt for votes means that they tend to chop the cake in very small pieces, which in the end is very inefficient, and it is very hard to do radical changes.

Naturally, also transport issues that get a lot of attention from the national press tend to get a higher level of funding, and this typically means that projects in the capital area IMO are more likely to be backed. However, that means that some counties always seems to have a bad hand. A far better way to organize the decisions for the transport infrastructure, in my opinion, is to let the parliament/policians draw up the big lines, with a plan lasting for far more than 4 years, and let the professionals decide the implementation.

This time around, they are on the highway sector promising 75 billion NOK (8.5 billion Euro) in government funds in investments, in addition they anticipate 60 billion in tolls over the next 10 year period! 75 billion may sound like a lot, but to put it into perspective, car related taxes in Norway amounts to 60 billion a YEAR currently, i. e. at least 600 billion during the next 10 years.

Here is a map indicating most of the projects:
















Projects indicated in grey is said to start in the latter 6 years of the period, but as discussed above, the plan for the latter 6 years is usually not very reliable.

The government claim that the plans mean that there will be built 230 km of new four lane roads (not necessarily motorways) during the next 10 year period, but a lot of the projects are at the end of the 10 year period and dependent on toll financing and further studies, i.e. mostly to have something to brag about in the upcoming election. This is particularly true, I am afraid, for the Rogfast tunnel, the 20 km long submarine motorway tunnel that we have discussed previously, in this thread. Almost all of the bigger projects is at the west coast (home turf of the transport minister) or in the eastern part of Norway. Almost all railway investments will be in the commuter area around Oslo. My own former home county around Trondheim will not have startup of a single major road project during the next four year period, except for perhaps 100 % toll financed projects in and around the city. 

All in all, I think this is pretty much the best we can expect from the current government, as the level of financing is probably a bit better than it would have been without the financial crisis. Most dissapointing with the plan is the total lack of addressing of one of the major issues in Norwegian road building, that the projects are to small, too short sighted, and that the politicians keep on changing their mind. This makes Norwegian roads quite expensive to build, much more expensive than for instance in Sweden.

As ElviS77 mentioned, the Progress Party, currently the biggest opposition party, presented their own plan on Thursday. I don't feel like restarting the discussion whether Norway needs a national motorway network or not (I guess both ElivS77 and myself got quite exhausted at the end, but the interested reader can revisit the discussion here), but this is what the Progress party prelimnary plan for 2035:








Not very dissimilar from the plan I proposed:








The major difference is that they have a few more roads around Oslo, lacks a direct Stavanger-Bergen link, and have plaved the Oslo - Trondheim through (or under?) the Dovre mountains national park, whereas I would prefer a 40-50 km shorter, and less vulnerable route further to the east.

In the progress party plan they also presented a hopefully updated AADT map of the national highways of Norway.








It should be noted that on most of the interregional links in Norway air traffic dominates due to the lack of a proper landbased, more climate friendly alternative. Also, Norway has one of the highest population growths of Europe, so the AADT numbers will IMO probably continue to increase a lot in the years to come. This was however a matter of debate in our previous discussion, so I won't go any further into it here.....

What I like about the Progress party plan is that they want to set aside a large fund (300 billion NOK / 34 billion Euro) for infrastructure investments. This will make the road builders less dependent on yearly government budgets and whims. I also really like the fact that they aim to make a real strategic plan for infrastructure planning in Norway, with a wider horisont than the next election. This has completely lacked this far. However, I am not sure whether I can get myself to vote for that party because I despise their politics on some other areas, in particular on climate....


----------



## Grauthue

^^
Great summary. Thanks


----------



## Ingenioren

Thanks for the map! I must say i'm pretty impressed with the amount of projects in the first face, i tought they where shifting priorities towards maintenance. But as mentioned, larger projects would attract further competion from internatioal contracters, making it possible to increase spendings even further! 

Oh! I want that Oslo Ring built Asap! And it's about time they do something about the missing link in Rv23, i couldn't believe my own eyes the first time i drove it and ended up stuck behind 10 + cars yielding for the local road from _Spikkestad_ (!) I'm glad they are accepting to use a little money on Rv3 and E16, altough i would wish they choose Rv52 as a main route to Bergen instead and tunnel the whole mountain-pass, it will be even better route with the upgrades of Rv7....

On another note, why would they build a new E6 trough Oppdal Sentrum? The general idea of a main route like E6 is that is shouldn't cross trough places that are named Sentrum....


----------



## IceCheese

Most of the money spent on E16 will be between Hønefoss and Bærum, which is to get a decent connection to Oslo for the Hønefoss, Valdres and Hallingdal regions.

Totally agree with you on the Rv23 part. The project is more or less a scandal how it just "ends" in an intersection in nowhere, and has so for a decade.

And I of course don't support most of the conclusions made by the government in this transportation plan, and feel that it only covers the most needed/media covered projects, probably securing some undeserved votes.


----------



## Ingenioren

Even with the level of activity on E16 in recent years, there are still a few bad pieces in Valdres and Lærdal, that looks according to the map they are covering most of them. While Rv52 / Rv7 has had a much better standard from the start, and it's even shorter. And i naturally the population south of Oslo is larger than north.... I don't see any arguments supporting the location of E16 as the main route east-west route to Bergen....


----------



## ElviS77

Ingenioren said:


> I don't see any arguments supporting the location of E16 as the main route east-west route to Bergen....


Well, the argument that has won the day this far, is that the E16 "always" remain open in the winter...


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

Ingenioren said:


> I don't see any arguments supporting the location of E16 as the main route east-west route to Bergen....


Previous reason: Opseth (Førde)
Current even better reason: Navarsete (Lærdal)


ElviS77 said:


> Well, the argument that has won the day this far, is that the E16 "always" remain open in the winter...


Tunnels would solve this on alternative shorter, and currently more trafficked routes.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

To me, a 2x2 motorway on the E6 route seems out of the question due to way too low traffic volumes. But are there plans to say; realign parts of the E6 so traffic flow quality will be increased?


----------



## Ingenioren

You don't even need tunnels (Altough it's the best alternative, might also reduce steep climbs), with works on the terrain and raising the road so the snow blows past it - a lot is achieved. 

I think (and hope) they will try to make most of E6 wide enough for a hard or soft barrier and extra lanes for uphills and every now and then.... 2+2 is imo. needed only to Lillehammer and from Melhus to Steinkjer....


----------



## IceCheese

Agreed that only 2+2 highway to Lillehammer will be enough, if the rest of the road would get a higher standard regarding width and the climbs would be reduced. But there has to be some sort of transportation that can compete with the plane on the stretch, so either way we would need a better railroad connection (HSR?). But eitherway if a new railroad or a new road would be constructed between Oslo and Trondheim, we would save a LOT on building the two at the same time (in the same paths).


----------



## Ingenioren

Some photos from the most recently completed road-projects, 2008-2009:

Rv13 Tunnel north of Voss:



















E18 motorway trough Drammen:



















Rv55 tunnel along Sognefjorden:










E6 motorway trough Østfold:










E39 Romarheimsdalen:



















E16 Lærdal:



















E39 intersection Bergen:



















Larvik ferry terminal:


----------



## Buddy Holly

Great road :cheers:


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

ChrisZwolle said:


> To me, a 2x2 motorway on the E6 route seems out of the question due to way too low traffic volumes. But are there plans to say; realign parts of the E6 so traffic flow quality will be increased?


Chriswolle, as you perhaps remember, this was the topic of a lengthy discussion here some time ago....

There are ways of shortening both alternative Oslo-Trondheim routes by several kms. If you draw a straight line between Trondheim and Oslo the distance is less than 400 km, compared with less than 500 km E6-Rv3-E6, and more than 540 along E6. Correspondingly, a straight line is almost 200 km (40 %) shorter than the currrent road on Oslo-Bergen, and 150-250 km (30-50 %) shorter on Oslo-Stavanger. However, it is very hard to build even close to straight roads everywhere in Norway. On Oslo-Bergen and Oslo-Stavanger some people argue that the main route should be along the current E134, which would be significantly shorter than the current main roads (E18/E39 to Stavanger and E14 to Bergen). There is currently no plans for a major realignment of E6, except that some argue that it should follow the current rv 3 (44 km shorter), which most transit traffic uses anyway. 

There is probably a lot more to gain per dollar by increasing the speed of travel. Currently, the average speed is less than 70 km/h. If this was increased to say 120 km/h, the driving time will be reduced by roughly 3 hours down to little more than four hours. Since a 7 hour+ trip usually require a major break, the effective time savings will be even larger. This effect will be somewhat smaller, however, if a motorway would be built along E6 rather than rv 3, because E6 would be longer. 

Currently, there are at least four sources of traffic increase on the major intercity routes in Norway (Oslo-Stavanger, Oslo-Bergen and Oslo-Trondheim).
1. Transfer of traffic from air: Currently the share of passenger traffic on all routes traveling by car/bus is less than 40 %, somewhat smaller than the air traffic share. Transfer from air is desirable from an environmental point of view, Oslo-Bergen and Oslo-Trondheim is currently ranks fourth and sixth, respectively, among the busies air routes in Europe. A lot of this traffic is budget traffic.
2. Transfer of traffic from competing roads: Currently the traffic is split between multiple roads on each link. If one of the routes are built as a motorway, and the other(s) not, some (most ?) of the transit traffic can be transferred. Prioritizing is however not something Norwegian politicians have been very clever at in the past, however.... In the case of Oslo-Trondheim, we have the E6 and rv 3, but rv 3 is dominating on the transit traffic.
3. Population growth: The population growth in Norway is currently quite high, and the population will probably approach 7 million in 2050, up from less than 5 million today.
4. Traveling frequency per person increase: Like it or not, the traffic has increased more than the population growth, and has doubled only during the last 25 years.

According to a recent study, point 3 and 4 above will lead to a total daily pax (air/railway/car/bus) Trondheim-Oslo of around 16 000 already in 10 years without any improvements in infrastructure. 

There is no doubt that neither Rv 3 or E6 will have any capacity problems in the parts with the least traffic in the near future. However, motorways will lead to:
*Far better safety (on such long drives you easily get sleepy, and head-on crashes are a major source of fatal accidents)
*Lower pollution (less acceleration/deacceleration/hills/kms and transfer from air)
*Better economy due to huge time savings

The current Norwegian standard call for narrow motorway (20 m) when expected AADT 20 years ahead is larger than 12 000, and 1+2 access restricted road ("autostrasse"/express road) from 8000 AADT. Longer tunnels require a second tube for lower AADTs (down to 8000 for 10 km and longer). Such long tunnels are quite likely at least on Oslo-Stavanger/Bergen. However, in order to get a significantly transfer of traffic from air, I think a motorway is needed also on the least trafficated parts of the Oslo-Trondheim/Bergen/Stavanger routes.


IceCheese said:


> Agreed that only 2+2 highway to Lillehammer will be enough, if the rest of the road would get a higher standard regarding width and the climbs would be reduced. But there has to be some sort of transportation that can compete with the plane on the stretch, so either way we would need a better railroad connection (HSR?). But eitherway if a new railroad or a new road would be constructed between Oslo and Trondheim, we would save a LOT on building the two at the same time (in the same paths).


I certainly agree with the latter part, I am also unsure whether it is wise to push a 2+2 further north than Lillehammer on the current E6, since that valley is quite narrow and has a very valuable/pittoresque landscape. However, along rv 3 there is plenty of space for 2+2, and this is where HSR would be most viable due to the lower construction costs.. In any case, Gardermoen-Lillehammer and Støren-Steinkjer (E6) and Kolomoen-Elverum (rv 3) should be fixed first.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

..


----------



## Ingenioren

We don't need 2+2 all the way to have a safe road, build 1+1(+ extra lane at times), maybe with 2+2 in tunnels. 2+2 is almost the same as 1+1 when it comes to safety.


----------



## IceCheese

The new highway E18 between Krosby and Knapstad in Østfold blows their budget by 160 mio, making the bill to 1,3 bio NOK. Crisis in the construction business seems to avoid Statens Vegvesen... 

The part of the same road between Vinterbro and Retvet in Akershus is also left out of the transportation plan as people may have noticed, so there won't be 2+2 there for a while. Not that the new Vinterbro krysset that will be done this fall is dimensioned for it eitherway... 

Good "klatteutbygging" by the government yet again!


----------



## Ingenioren

And that part is probably the one with the most trafic aswell, why is Østfold always getting their way?


----------



## ElviS77

54°26′S 3°24′E;33772356 said:


> Currently, the average speed is less than 70 km/h.


I'm not getting into this again, but I really wonder about this claim (it's part of a government analysis, right?). I've never gone that slow Oslo-Stavanger, Oslo-Bergen and certainly not Oslo-Trondheim, and even if I go a bit faster than the average motorist, this seems strange.


----------



## ElviS77

54°26′S 3°24′E;33764458 said:


> Tunnels would solve this on alternative shorter, and currently more trafficked routes.


Again: I don't say I agree, but elevation and winter closure have been the main arguments. As for Navarsæte being from Sogn og Fjordane (actually Sogndal, I think), Hemsedal would make just as much sense in that respect.


----------



## Ingenioren

Aftenposten did a story about this a few weeks ago:

http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/iriks/article2953195.ece


----------



## ElviS77

Ingenioren said:


> Aftenposten did a story about this a few weeks ago:
> 
> http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/iriks/article2953195.ece


The article says that Oslo–Trondheim (498 km) will take 7hours, 13 min, thus the average speed is 69 km/h. Even including about 30 mins of breaks, I've yet to spend 7 hours and 13 minutes en route Oslo-Trondheim, even at Easter... Aftenposten is a nice newspaper, but I don't think all that many of its reporters get to Trondheim by road...


----------



## IceCheese

Ingenioren said:


> And that part is probably the one with the most trafic aswell, why is Østfold always getting their way?


Because they are financing their part with toll booths. No way in hell the population of Ås and Ski will accept a new tollboth at Nygård, or where it would be.


----------



## Ingenioren

You just take and take, but give nothing back don't you! Toll free E6 did you get tough.... I read somewhere the government thinks we have finally reached a point for some parts of the country where tolls are to high and no more toll projects can get approved....









Not updated, but it gives an impression....


----------



## IceCheese

What? I'm pretty sure someone in this thread (or was it in the N&B part) that Trondheim/Trøndelag _had_ to have the most tolled stretches in the country (ok, I won't battle).



Ingenioren said:


> You just take and take, but give nothing back don't you!


Well, there isn't much local commitment for this specific stretch. Only indre Østfold is fighting for it, so let them also pay for it, we say!


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

^^At least I never said that. What I did claim was that 
1. The higher degree of infrastructure investments in the Oslo area is not because these areas is higher tolled than the rest of the country
2. For someone living a bit off the most urban areas sometimes needs to pay a massive amount of toll just to get anywhere. 
3. Trøndelag always for some reason seems to get the worst toll deals with the government.

The city council of Trondheim actually removed the toll ring on December 1st, 2005 because the labor party had promised to do so. Now, apparantly, those promises does not count any more, so they plan to introduce several new "payment points" around the city. "No no, it is not a toll ring, they are payment points", is turning into a classic labor party new speak. In addition, there are talks about introducing a new toll road from Orkanger to the Hitra tunnel, such that the people living on Hitra/Frøya, the most important export region of central Norway, probably need to go through at least 8 toll points only to get through to the regional airport. And of course, it does not stop there, the local politicians want to toll the entire E6 in Sør-Trøndelag county south of Trondheim, from Stjørdal to Åsen, also on E6, and a grand toll package of Fosen is also being pushed. The E6 packages is of course on the grand government map of road projects for the next 10 years, but there is not a single cent promised.... (That is btw also true regarding rv 23, as far as I understand)

Regarding E18 from Vinterbro, it needs improvement like a lot of roads in Norway, but I guess with the massive investments that has taken place on the E6 in the areas, and not at least the 12 billion NOK promised for the next decade on railway, I guess the area has received it piece of the much too small cake..... 


Ingenioren said:


> We don't need 2+2 all the way to have a safe road, build 1+1(+ extra lane at times), maybe with 2+2 in tunnels. 2+2 is almost the same as 1+1 when it comes to safety.


That is only because the speed is lower. On a four lane motorway you can have much higher speed with the same level of safety, and because you will have less accelerations and deaccelarations, the emissions will be lower. In order to avoid blocking the road for emergency vehicles etc., a 1+1 or 1+2 needs to be quite wide. 1+2 is for instance 14.5 m wide according to the standard. That is only 25 % less than a narrow motorway in terms of width, and in terms of cost the difference is less.


ElviS77 said:


> The article says that Oslo–Trondheim (498 km) will take 7hours, 13 min, thus the average speed is 69 km/h. Even including about 30 mins of breaks, I've yet to spend 7 hours and 13 minutes en route Oslo-Trondheim, even at Easter... Aftenposten is a nice newspaper, but I don't think all that many of its reporters get to Trondheim by road...


I guess we are not the average motorist...., they are are only citing a report from Rambøll. One point of the report is that the difference with other countries would be larger for heavy vehicles.


----------



## IceCheese

I think we can agree that none of these places should've had toll financing in the first place..

Though E18 may be more than great without an expansion to a highway, there should've been done some safety measures a long time ago. Article from 2006 in my local paper:


> E18 gjennom Follo er det veifolk kaller en gammeldags vei, med mange av- og påkjøringer som har ført til flere alvorlige ulykker.
> Statistikk fra Statens vegvesen for strekningen fra Østfold grense til Svartskog, viser at det har vært 155 ulykker på veien siden 1996. 12 personer har mistet livet. Det har vært syv meget alvorlige ulykker, 24 alvorlige og 189 ulykker med lettere skader. Alt i løpet av ti år.


Thoug the modernisation of Nygårdskrysset (intersection towards Ski) and Holstadkrysset (intersection towards Ås)(a bad solution here though) has helped, there's a lot to go...


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

*E6 - Highway priorities and construction - the Norwegian way*

^^ As I said, of course the road should be completed. But there are unfortunately many other roads that need a fix in this country. 

I just discovered this report from 2006, which calculates the benefits of improving E-6 from south to north in Norway to 90 km/h speed limit. The main results of the report are summarized in the table below:








*Signed vel.: The current speed limit (as of 2006 I guess, the speed limit north of Gardemoen was lowered at some point)
*Saved time: The amount of time saved if the E6 through the county would get 90 km/h
*Saved costs: The total transport savings with a new road
*Req. investments: The required investments according to the government to get the E6 up to standard in the various counties.

Based on this, I calculated the annual return rate for improving the road. Østfold is not on the list because E6 is already up to standard there. Of course, this is not exact science, since some of the places "up to standard" means 100, whereas at other places it means 80 km/h. Also there are often many other benefits of upgrading a highway, like a reduction in emissions, improved health in towns which the old highways go through and not at least a reduction in accident numbers and costs. Anyway the table gives an idea where it makes economic sense to invest. The last two columns show the main government investments  (i.e. not tolls, as these reduce the economic benefit of the road) in the various counties. I believe they say quite a lot about Norwegian political priorities. Too bad there are no similar numbers for certain other projects around our country.....

The problem is that a real and realistic analysis of where it would be most cost efficient to build roads in this country seems to lack almost completely. For projects that are ready to by built, some sort of analysis often are made, but it does not seem to have any effect on the investment choices by the government.

At the same time, just south of Trondheim they plan to start construction of a new E6 next year:








Currently, the traffic of this ridiculous two-lane road is around 25000 AADT. In addition a parallel local road has around 20 000 AADT, and they believe about half that traffic will be transferred to E6 once it is up to standard. I.e., probably E6 will have around 35 000 AADT at the opening day, not including general traffic increase. Despite of this, the Norwegian government does not want to pay a penny (i.e. all tolls) and this being Norway, they will build less than a km, and then wait for five years before they start construction on the remainder of the project, giving a total construction time of 10 years for 10 km of motorway....


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

*"4-lanes Oslo-Trondheim is good macroeconomic investment"*

Yesterday the Norwegian weekly engineering magazine had an article about the profitability for the society of building a four lane motorway Trondheim-Oslo. The article was based on an interview with a researcher in socio-economics in a different corner of the country. A quick translation:
Headline: -Four lane motorway is profitable
Abstract: Construction of a motorway from Trondheim to Oslo only needs to take 10 years, but then it has to be built continously, according to researcher.


----------



## IceCheese

Road building won't drive the inflation through the roof? Blasphemy!


----------



## IceCheese

"Would you want the responsibilty for this road?"









This is the governments "gift" to the conties: 44.200 km of national roads to be in charge for. The news is that though the transfer is almost ready, no actual increase in fundings has been spoken of, and no one knows how large the maintainance gap actually is. Basicly it's just a way for the government to leave others with the blame, I would guess.

Whole article in Norwegian, for all readers:



> *Gir bort 44.200 km nedslitte veier*
> 
> _Her er Regjeringens «gave» til fylkene. _
> JOHN HULTGREN SVEINUNG BERG BENTZRØD
> 
> **Regjeringen overlater ansvaret for riksveiene til fylkene.
> 
> *Summen fylkene får til å utbedre veiene, skal etter planen være klar i mai.
> 
> *Det vil ta minst et år før den faktiske prislappen for utbedringene er klar.
> 
> *Fylkene har store innvendinger og ber om å få overta veier i god stand.*
> 
> Regjeringen beholder dagens stamveier – og litt av riksveiene – og dumper resten av det norske veinettet over på fylkeskommunene 1. januar. Dette kaller regjeringen en overføring av store økonomiske verdier, og beskriver det nærmest som en gest. Fylkesveiene overtas vederlagsfritt.
> 
> Samtidig presiseres det at veiene, 44.200 km, overtas med den standard de har på overføringstidspunktet, og med tilhørende rettigheter og plikter. Pliktene kommer Regjeringen raskt inn på. I ny Nasjonal transportplan står det blant annet at «...overføringen stiller store krav til fylkeskommunenes oppfølging av sitt nye ansvarsområde. Nasjonale målsettinger for trafikksikkerhet må ivaretas, og Regjeringen vurderer å innføre minstestandarder, eller tiltaksstandarder, for fylkesveiene.»
> 
> Aftenposten kan dokumentere at det er svært mye som er uklart rundt overføringen av veiene:
> 
> * Regjeringen peker selv på at en mengde spørsmål reises om hvordan utgiftene til veiene skal fordeles, hvordan pengene skal overføres, og hva minstestandardene skal gå ut på.
> 
> * Det er foreløpig ikke klart hvilket departement som skal hjelpe fylkeskommunene med finansieringen – Kommunal- og regionaldepartementet eller Samferdselsdepartementet.
> 
> * Da overføringene av veiene ble behandlet i Stortinget var utgangspunktet at de skulle overføres til regioner, ikke til fylker. Men innføring av regionene har latt vente på seg.
> 
> Det er i dag ingen som vet hva forfall og manglende vedlikehold beløper seg til. Ifølge en rapport fra Statens veivesen fra 2005, er Hordaland det fylket med størst etterslep.
> 
> Opplysningsrådet for Veitrafikken har regnet på tall fra ulike statlige kilder, og sier at forfallet på veinettet som blir fylkenes ansvar fra nyttår, er på mellom 25 og 27,5 milliarder kroner, men leder for politikk og strategi, Vilrid Femoen, sier dette er høyst usikre tall. Høyst usikre er også konsekvensene av at fylkene overtar ansvaret.
> 
> –Hensikten med dette er i hvert fall ikke å gi innbyggerne bedre veier. Det handler mer om å gi fylkene meningsfylte oppgaver, sier Femoen. Hun sier det er avgjørende at det følger nok penger med, og at det etableres et minstekrav til veistandard. Det finnes ikke slike krav til eksisterende veier i dag.
> 
> I forslaget til Nasjonal transportplan kommenterte de fleste fylkeskommunene overføringen av veiene. Flere av fylkene mener det ikke er akseptabelt at Staten legger opp til overføring av øvrige riksveier til regionene uten at et blir kompensert for forfallet på det samme veinettet.
> 
> Sør-Trøndelag sier: Fylkestinget kan ikke akseptere at det skal kompenseres for vedlikeholdsetterslepet i de årlige statsbudsjettene. Da vil i realiteten de øvrige rammene til riksveier bli redusert.
> 
> Østfold sier: Vi forutsetter at staten sørger for at disse veiene er i god forfatning før overføring finner sted, og at det gis tilstrekkelige tilskudd til fremtidig vedlikehold og nyinvestering.
> 
> Vestfold sier: Staten legger opp til overføring av riksveier til fylkeskommunene fra 2010 uten at vedlikeholdsetterslepet kompenseres før overtagelsen.
> 
> Buskerud sier: En overføring av øvrig riksveinett til fylkeskommunene forutsetter videre at staten tar ansvar for å rette opp forfallet og bringe veiene i skikkelig stand i samsvar med veilovens krav. I motsatt fall ønsker ikke fylkestinget å overta dette ansvaret.
> 
> Nordland sier: Veiene og fergesambandene bør selvfølgelig ha en rimelig standard ved overleveringen, hvis ikke må fylkeskommunen få kompensasjon.
> 
> Troms sier: Regionene kan ikke ta imot et nedkjørt og forfalt veinett uten tilstrekkelig kompensasjon.
> 
> Finnmark sier: Finnmark fylkeskommune vil presisere at veiene ved overtagelsestidspunktet må ha en tilfredsstillende kvalitet. Fylkestinget forutsetter at ingen riksveier vedtas omklassifisert/overført til fylkeskommunen før veiene oppfyller alle tekniske krav i henhold til Veiloven.
> 
> Vest-Agder sier: Selv staten ser at det er husmannsvilkår de tilbyr de nye veieierne. Dette synes, ut fra prinsippet om rammeoverføring, å være helt galt.
> 
> Sogn og Fjordane sier: Vi krev at riksvegar som skal overføres til nytt forvaltningsnivå skal være i forsvarlig stand.
> 
> Hordaland sier: I forbindelse med overføring av ansvaret for øvrige riksveier... finner fylkestinget det uakseptabelt at dette blir gjort uten kompensasjon for standardheving på det samme veinettet.
> 
> *–Ingen fare å bevilge for mye*
> Her er Samferdselsdepartementets svar på Aftenpostens spørsmål om fylkesveiene, ved statssekretær Geir Pollestad:
> 
> –Det heter seg at store økonomiske verdier overtas vederlagsfritt. Noe som gir assosiasjoner til en ny Mercedes man får levert på trappen. Men representerer ikke fylkesveiene i realiteten en rusten Datsun fra 1970-tallet, med fyldig mangellapp og små sjanser til å komme gjennom neste EU-kontroll?
> 
> –Det dreier seg om et mangfoldig veinett. Men veiene blir ikke dårligere av at fylkene overtar. Uavhengig av eier vil det være et behov for en betydelig innsats de neste årene for å få dem opp på et skikkelig nivå. Det er viljen til å satse penger som vil avgjøre standarden, sier Pollestad.
> 
> –Hva beregner dere etterslepet for fylkesveipakken til å være i dag?
> 
> –I desember anslo vi etterslepet for 27.000 km fylkesvei til å være 13 mrd., basert på en rapport fra 2005. Så har vi nettopp bestilt en ny gjennomgang for hele det norske veinettet.
> 
> –Men denne rapporten kommer lenge etter at dere har bestemt hvor mye penger fylkene skal få til utbedringer?
> 
> –Det er riktig at rapporten hverken kan eller skal være ferdig til mai. Men en ny gjennomgang vil bidra med mer kunnskap om hvor stort etterslepet er. Med den manglende satsingen på samferdsel som har vært over lang tid, er det ingen fare for å bevilge for mye de nærmeste årene.
> 
> –Flere fylkeskommuner og Opplysningsrådet for Veitrafikken mener at veiene må settes skikkelig i stand før overtagelsen, eller innen en definert overgangsperiode?
> 
> –Stortinget har lagt til grunn at de overleveres i den stand de er. Og at videre utbedring må skje over noe tid. Men det innebærer at man må få økonomiske rammer til å løse oppgaven. Alt koker ned til et spørsmål om økonomisk handlingsrom for fylkene. Det blir en stor oppgave å sikre store nok bevilgninger.


Aftenposten: http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/iriks/article2997979.ece


----------



## Ingenioren

Does it really matter? Makes more sense to have the counties decide, since they are in charge of PT and the county-roads. Now they can decide where to spend the money, for example in Stavanger with Bybanen VS. Ryfast. Naturally they will get a heck of a lot more money accordingly on the budget... Often you can see shiny riksveier, while the fylkesveier are more important - but they are in different priority. This is a change for the better, right. Now counties can probably change numbers and delete numbers on the roads that are crap and serve no purpose except for 2 farmers living along it...


----------



## ElviS77

IceCheese said:


> "Would you want the responsibilty for this road?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think that road is fantastic! A national, numbered road in "the world's richest country"... Just amazing. Nonetheless, some counties think it's a good idea. Hedmark, for instance, does not want the rv 25 to become a national route, they believe it will deteriorate even further if if has to compete with other national roads. An interesting point, even though I disagree.


----------



## Ingenioren

Rv 25 needs to be national, since all Norwegian roads are terrible it's the best access to the Swedish road-network that most use going north! But Rv25 has a pretty good standard already considering... ;D It makes sense to gather the roads under the county for better planning, why do they think they will get less money after the reform tough, let's hope they are wrong! Are they afraid of more power, or afraid they will get blamed for the bad standard?


----------



## ElviS77

Ingenioren said:


> Rv 25 needs to be national, since all Norwegian roads are terrible it's the best access to the Swedish road-network that most use going north! But Rv25 has a pretty good standard already considering... ;D It makes sense to gather the roads under the county for better planning, why do they think they will get less money after the reform tough, let's hope they are wrong! Are they afraid of more power, or afraid they will get blamed for the bad standard?


I absolutely agree, it should be part of the national system. But I think the point made by a few Hedmark politicians is a valid one, "secondary" national roads might suffer compared to the main roads transfered to the counties. That is, if the plan is realised in its current state, I think it's pretty much a scandal to see that noone has any ideas (at least not presented to the public) about how the new numbering system will be. Are they just going to keep the old one? Pretty confusing, given that the status of most of that system will be equial to that of the old county roads...


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

1. I seriously doubt there is much north/south traffic traveling via rv 25 / Trysil, or for that matter, rv 20, and those two roads are two of many I would like to remove from the national trunk network.
2. I think it is overoptimistic to believe that the counties will take better care of the highways transferred to them than the national government. I predict that we will get the same blame game as we previously had with the hospitals, i.e. the counties blaming the national government for not sending enough money, and the government blaming the counties for not doing their job. The result is that these roads will detoriate further,at best status quo in a few counties. The problem is that the counties do not really have control of their own economy.
3. A messy road numbering system is a nuiscance for the tourists, but really, in the big picture, who cares?


----------



## ElviS77

54°26′S 3°24′E;34389244 said:


> A messy road numbering system is a nuiscance for the tourists, but really, in the big picture, who cares?


I do, at least... It's not just a problem for tourists, in a country where numbered exits isn't something we will see a lot of, decently numbered national routes help. But I do agree there are more pressing matters in terms of Norwegian infrastructure.


----------



## Ingenioren

A little trip on Ring3 in Oslo on a Sunday morning, so trafic is low, Starting of in Sinsen intersection, exiting Rv4 from the south:










Taking the Ring3 to the east direction Ryen:










In the last week of 60km/h limit, here Vegvesenet is kindly telling those trapped in jams, they only have to wait untill 2013 for the new tunnel;D










Huge sidewalks alongside the Ring, even tough the sign, i have never experienced it to be closed... 










Here's the worksite for eastern ending of Lørentunnelen:










Driving on a temporary alignment here, more of the route will be shifted later on:










Shouldn't they plaster over the 60-signs here?










Intersection where Ring 3 merges with E6 is being worked on aswell as a new local road crossing over, buildings are located very close to the road here:










They have teared down a bikebridge just to put up a temporary one, and they are working on an roadbridge behind that one:










New exit for E6 north (Actually east trough Oslo, but but):










Exit to Helsfyr and the shortcut to E18, strangely they didn't find that worth signing... Note the cool new glas-monster there, said to blind drivers when the sun is reflected;D










Bryn exit, commonly used as a shortcut in rushhour, creating even more jam... ;P










Furusetbanen T-bane crosses right above the road, and the local rail station Bryn is located under the bridge, only E6 on the sign here:










Lamberseterbanen T-bane follows the ringroad, more wide sidewalks - a paralell bikeway has also been built here (See the lightpoles right of the tracks), so it could just aswell been turned into a buslane imo.










Manglerud exit is basicly just a T-intersection, one of the more dangerous on this road - and some call this a motorway... ;P Here the buslane starts.










Manglerud T-bane station:










Ryen intersection - ending point of Ring 3, E18 is not signed here either altough this is the only 4 lane "expressway" towards E18 from the south, typical Oslo with the large roundabout on top of Ring 3.










E6 continous south with more of a motorway character, still 80km/h tough:


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Nice pics. They're not afraid to sign foreign destinations in Norway  very good. 

I can't say I like the yellow signage too much for motorways though.


----------



## Ingenioren

It's not morway, hence the low standard aubviously, if you look a few pages back, i have taken pictures of the E6 motorway (while parts of it was still U/C) to the swedish border - signs are blue for motorway;D


----------



## Timon91

Just like a "Gelbe Autobahn"


----------



## Ingenioren

The part of E18 Momarken - Melleby (7) will not be 4 lane all the way, it will gradualy become narrower towards the east, but directions will be separated all the way:










New intersection at Momarken with Rv22:









http://www.smaalenene.no/nyheter/article4267830.ece

Construction starts in 2011, and the whole stretch will be 90km/h.


----------



## RipleyLV

Nice pics! I noticed two Polish trucks in the last pictures.


----------



## Red-Lion

This is how the new "Tjensvollkrysset" (famous roundabout in Stavanger) will look like:
(Notice how blocked the view is.)









Links for videos:
http://www.aftenbladet.no/lokalt/article1019212.ece
http://www.aftenbladet.no/lydbildeserier/1018595/Bygger_glorie_over_Tjensvollkrysset.html (pretty new one, but in norwegian)

Location (it's where E39 intersect 509):
http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=58.956648,5.724049&spn=0.049927,0.181961&z=13

This roundabout has a lot of traffic at the moment, but in 5?? years when the Eiganes tunnel is built under Stavanger E39 will reroute and this roundabout should see some decrease in traffic. 


The reason I'm writing this is because what concerns me when I drive around in cities like Stavanger and Trondheim is the lack of YIMBYism! There are no motorways in Trondheim, even if there are 4 line roads, some got speed limits of 70km/h. 
And the new 4-lane road they built of the 44 around Sandnes, is just sad! A good road that could been classified as a motorway got 2 roundabouts instead of propper bridges. Also the new proposed four-line extension southwards on E39 is planned without propper road shoulders, while the traffic is 35 000 per day, way over the "limit" for not doing this. 

It was good to let go of some rage 

I'm just glad the new 4-liner they plan in Trondheim gonna get motorway status 

And to those who tell Norway are wise to save money in an oil fund, well, we just lost 30 4-line links between Bergen and Oslo worth :bash:

edit: Also to clarify something since this is my first post and all:
The speed limit on Norwegian motorways are 80 km/h by default, but normally it's marked to 90km/h, or 100km/h on some around Oslo.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

That roundabout on top is for cyclists?


----------



## Ingenioren

Yes, this will be much better for bikers, bikeroutes have very varied standard here, often there are top-standard bikeroutes, but they lack the propert connections trough intersections, like here, so there is a lot of back and forth, crossings and 90 degree corneres etc, great project!

Welcome to the forum Red Lion! I to hate the motorway-roundabouts on Rv44 hopeless - unfortunatly i think that will also be the standard for E6 north of Værnes. In some cases the i agree with the nimbys tough, for example when it comes to tunneling motorways trough cities - politicians are fortunatly very early demanding long tunnels. But the best thing would be to build bypasses, it doesn't have to be motorways, but just a good standard road for long distance travellers that is not jammed with the local cities trafic, Steinkjer, Narvik and Mo I Rana are examples of where they have screwed up building new roads, just as bad as the old one trough the heart of town. And Oppdal is planning a simular deal...


----------



## Red-Lion

ChrisZwolle said:


> That roundabout on top is for cyclists?


Yes, cyclists and pedestrians. I got a handful of friends already crashed in that roundabout and I can't imagine this becoming better. It's a bizarre way of having fun to sit in the skybar at the nearby hotel tower and look down and count "almost" collisions and funny situations. 

A lot of locals are very angry because they are using a lot of money (15 million euros+) on this roundabout, but basically it's the same design as the old one, except the pedestrian bridges was like a half square.

edit: damn beaten by Ingenioren


----------



## Red-Lion

Ingenioren said:


> Yes, this will be much better for bikers, bikeroutes have very varied standard here, often there are top-standard bikeroutes, but they lack the propert connections trough intersections, like here, so there is a lot of back and forth, crossings and 90 degree corneres etc, great project!
> 
> Welcome to the forum Red Lion! I to hate the motorway-roundabouts on Rv44 hopeless - unfortunatly i think that will also be the standard for E6 north of Værnes. In some cases the i agree with the nimbys tough, for example when it comes to tunneling motorways trough cities - politicians are fortunatly very early demanding long tunnels. But the best thing would be to build bypasses, it doesn't have to be motorways, but just a good standard road for long distance travellers that is not jammed with the local cities trafic, Steinkjer, Narvik and Mo I Rana are examples of where they have screwed up building new roads, just as bad as the old one trough the heart of town. And Oppdal is planning a simular deal...


Yes, I read about the discussion of long or short Eiganes tunnel, as well as prolonging it with "artificial" tunnel. If that is NIMBYism then it's a cool form of it  One solution is better than no solution. 

Anyway, now a environmental party "The Liberal Party of Norway" (aka. Venstre) wants to put down a lot of resources in improving E39 from Kristiansand to Trondheim, and then E6 northbound. 
http://www.aftenbladet.no/innenriks/politikk/1019792/Kyststamveien_skal_vaere_Venstres_vei_nr_1.html
The leftwing in Norway also came with one of the better transport plans they have had in years, and the right wing is totally for improving the roads, so I hope in 10 years time we can look back and be satisfied with the development!

It's hard to predict the Stavanger-region since every municipality is doing whatever they want, and there is actually a very good agriculture protection going on in Rogaland, compared to other places, even if the farmers always whine. For example the "red/green" city of Trondheim is allowing expansions in almost any direction.

Thanks for the welcome


----------



## Ingenioren

Funny how the lefties are prettending to be so into protecting the environment, public transport and farmland, while they make a lot of trouble for themselves, refusing the plans of those wishing to build denser around the sentrum of for example Trondheim... I totally agree with Venstre tough, the areas without train should have a priority when it comes to roads, simply because it's fair


----------



## Ingenioren

Again and again, plans are underdimensioned by Vegvesen, like in Østfold, where they built a new 3 lane road in the mid 90s, it had to be expanded, why didn't they build a full scale motorway in the first place? 

A new tunnel on E39 north of Bergen with 15.000 cars a day, estimated 18 000 on the day of opening, and it's in an area of growth:

E39 will hopefully be rerouted sometime in the future, as it's long overdue, but still.... 










http://www.bt.no/lokalt/bergen/article834444.ece?cmpid=rss[ece_frontpage]

In the increasingly one-sided debate, it's seems we are likely to shift our way of financing roads from a tiny piece here and a tiny piece there onto larger projects that are full-financed from the start. And it will be tested on a few projects in the new transport-plan. Finally some sense, this will overall save the society a lot of money, and make it easier for contractors...


----------



## Red-Lion

I drove E39 from Stavanger to Sandnes today during the late rush hours, traffic was going in 10-30 km/h on almost the complete length. Is there any plans to expand this to perhaps 3 or even 4 lines in each direction? It looks like there are space on the sides to widen the road without any problems, only problem is those two tunnels fairly near Stavanger, it was a hell to breathe inside those when the traffic was snailing and you got so many cars inside it just constantly polluting.


----------



## IceCheese

^^I guess the recent closing of Jærbanen between Stavanger and Sandnes makes the problems larger now than it usually is..


----------



## Ingenioren

Yeah, it's gets worse before it get's better as usual, i believe that it's not the motorway itself that is the cause of the big jams, they are working on several projects on the roads connecting to, i.e. Rv44 that we discussed, Solasplitten and several more local roads Rogaland has plenty of projects on the planning-stage, but not anyone including the existing motorway. So don't expect any 3 lane motorway there for a while... Also the expansion to the south is sooo slow, i think it's like under 1 km a year maximum, ridiculous...


----------



## Ingenioren

A trip from Ring 3 to Strømmen and back, photos are taken around 2-3 in the afternoon:










Beginning on the intersection between E6 and Ring 3:









Entering a very short expressway with wire-lighting first:









A local exit:









Beginning of the motorway:









Merging with the Rv190 expressway from downtown Oslo:









Trough Groruddalen E6 is mostly 8-lanes wide, local/freight railway-line passes on a bridge above:









The lane to the right is dedicated to Taxi, Emergency vehicles, Buses and also Electric cars are allowed:









Alnabru exit:









A cool noise-barrier:









A lot of bridges crosses this suburban motorway, the small road to the right is comming from a bus-stop and leads directly to a ramp, bus-stops aren't allowed on the motorway so they are located in relation to exits like this:









Still, another bridge is under construction, the valley-populations dream is to hide the whole E6 someday:









Strømmen - Exit not far away:









E6 exit numbers starts here, the 42 number seems a bit random. 









2 smaller motorways split, Rv159 to the suburbs to the east, while E6 leads parallell for a few km, but turns north eventually, the high light-masts are far from typical but used on the large motorway, here 









Entering a new country and commune, but the suburbs sprawl past those limits:









Not a high-standard motorway, it only has 90km/h speed limit.









The Lørenskog suburb is in growt, and the motorway cuts right trough it, a new bridge has been opened this year:









Double-exit, instead of numbers, the intersections are named:









The Strømmen exit is a joint accelleration and exit lane:









This exit has ramps to the west exclusively, and runs right into a tunnel:









Exiting the tunnel, the old road trough Fjellhamar is turned into a community-friendly road that the Vegvesenet loves so much:









Entering Strømmen, generously signed - this is far from standard:









Small urban roundabout:









Heading back now, 180 degrees from where the last picture is taken:









Funny tracks in the road:









Entering the tunnel from the other side:









And arriving directly on the motorway:









The newest part of Rv159 has wire-barriers and poles on both sides:


















This is the older part:









Leading to E6 north and Rv163 - Oslo is the worst when it comes to signing riksveier.









This is not a grade free route, as is very common for motorways meeting:









Welcome to Oslo, driving under E6:









Merging to a the 8 lane road:









Both right lanes is good for Lindeberg:









Always busy road-stretch, the Grorudvalley is one big pile of roads it has 2 additional expressways running parallell to E6 aswell:









Exit for bus-stop:









Buslane gives way for trafic from the right:









The remains of the old tollring plaza is well on the way:









Splitting into Rv190 left and E6 right, one example of how good Scandinavians are at signing to other countries, Gothenburg is 4 hours away and Stockholm is 6 hours away:









The new toll-ring installations are fully automatic:









Endingpoint of motorway, the bridge above is not being used for anything, one of many ambitious road-plans from the past in Grorudvalley that never came to be:









Campsites are well signed for visitors of our capital:









Meeting Ring3, where we started:


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Nice pictures, thanks for the report!

About the exit number 42, is it possible that it might continue from another motorway? Some countries, like France, do that. Autoroute A9 exit numbering continues from the Autoroute A7 numbering for instance.


----------



## Ingenioren

^ No problem, seeming you guys didn't know the colour of signs in this country it was long overdue Btw. i only take pictures when i'm not driving myself

It's a brand new scheme. Before entering Ring 3 from the south E6 ends with Exit 31, but counting the exits it should be 40, maybe they want to add more, but considering the future plans of tunneling E6 outside of Ring 3 being discussed the number of exits would be much less, i guess there will always be a gap in numberings when the roads are unstatic like in the city-area... But then on E18 the numbers starts at 1 towards the west/Drammen, so how will they number the E18 towards Stockholm? No idea...


----------



## snowman159

Does that automatic toll system use transponders (like EZ Pass) or does it work like the one in London?

How do out-of-towners or visitors from abroad pay the tolls?

Very nice pictures, btw. kay:


----------



## IceCheese

^^Commuters get a "autoPass", that registers everytime you pass. People without one of those can either pay at a nearby gas-station, or else you will recieve a bill in the mail after some passings (or by new year) (even foreigners).



Ingenioren said:


> Entering Strømmen, generously signed - this is far from standard:
> http://i584.photobucket.com/albums/ss282/Ingenioren3/Til Strommen/DSC_0175.jpg


I generously disagree. Most towns/boroughs have these signs on enterings from major regional/national roads. Some places in Oslo it's almost ridiculous how many small local names getting signed like this..


----------



## ducky

Ingenioren said:


> Alnabru exit:


That exit is not to Alnabru, the exit to Alnabru is on rv190.


----------



## Ingenioren

All roads lead to Alnabru, this is the one signed "Alnabruterminalen" (a grand truck to rail freight terminal) to be precise;D Ps. a bit confusing, the exit on Rv190 is only one ramp signed eastbound - and there's 2 unsigned (for aubvious reasons) T-crosses with Ulvenveien aswell, on E6 Ulvensplitten there is another full-scale intersection pointing to "Alnabru": 


Ingenioren said:


>


----------



## ducky

True. But if you're taking the exit on the picture you posted, you gotta drive back and drive through toll.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

^^ Been there, done that :lol:

Now, as Ingeniøren got dangerously close to my home, I show some urban and suburban and not so urban road and highway pictures from a trip I made in my other home, Trondheim, last weekend, 25th of April.
I am sorry for the rather grainy quality, which is due to a combination of dirty windscreen, large compression, and a problem to get a proper focus through the window, I guess...
As there are not that many big roads in Trondheim, the beginning of the picture series is from smaller roads that be found around Trondheim.
The trip starts in the forest above the city, at Skistua in Bymarka. Although Trondheim has had in the range of 15-22 C for a couple of weeks now, decent cross country skiing is reportedly still possible up there.
















Driving down a winding road (Fjellsetervegen) down to the city. During nice winter weekends there can be quite a lot of cars here, but now there is also bicycles and runners in the mix.








There is still quite a lot of snow along the road, but very dirty, and not meter-high like it was a month ago.
















Roughly 5 minutes from Skistua, I find myself on the main road of the roughly 40 000 strong western suburb of Trondheim called Byåsen. No sign of winter anymore here....








The road (Byåsvegen) soon turn to a normal dual lane road ahead. Other than a 80-year old tramway and this road the transport infrastructure of Byåsen is truely lousy.








After a few roundabouts and a few shorter bridges the road continues towards the southern suburbs of Trondheim Kolstad/Heimdal/Tiller. On the way, the road passes close by the Granåsen world cup/ world championship ski jumping hill (not my picture)








Perhaps time to renew some signs?








Continue across Bjørndalsbrua, one of the bigger bridges of Trondheim.
















And straight from there into shopping mall hell, Østre Rosten (this road is often seriously clogged during weekends, and has around 20 000 AADT)








Time to get onto the European higway grid, and northwards towards central Trondheim. The sign is a omnious warning regarding the design of the main exit ramp for Byåsen








Hopefully this ramp will be fixed in a couple of years.








I guess this is the closest Trondheim get to a motorway (sharp turn on ramp, and the fact that the road has this standard for a rather short length, is probably why it is not signed as a motorway). And BTW, there is a serious moose hasard on this part of E6...








For no particular reason, except perhaps the hill, the E6 becomes 6-lane here. With traffic above 50 000 AADT, this is the stretch with the highes traffic in Trondheim.
































A picture taken from the east bank of Nidelva , linked from www.panoramio.com/photo/2392461 








At the other side of the bridge, the E6 splits. For some stupid reason both the highway that bypasses and goes straigth into central Trondheim has the identical number. (They used to differ) And Narvik, BTW, is 900 km and a ferry to the north, I wonder what percentage of the traffic that planned on going there last Saturday.... (Signage to Sundsvall, Sweden and 450 km to the east via E14, starts at the eastern side of Trondheim)
Edit: Actually, the first Sundsvall /E14 sign is shortly after this split. Most people going from Trondheim to Sweden is however destined either to Åre, Scandinavias biggest skiresort, or Østersund. Both are considerable closer to Trondheim, but Sundsvall is larger and the endpoint of the Swedish E14.








We continue on the bypass. Speed camera is conveniently located right after the ramp, and traffic is around 45000 AADT.








There is a roundabout on top of this intersection called Nardo-krysset. Exit for the Norwegian University of Science and Technology.








Exit to another university campus, after which traffic drops from well above 40 000 to just below 30 000. However, the standard improves slightly.
























Notice that the right lane is exit only, this lead many to use the left lane for almost the entire length of the road.....








Arrival at Lade, another major shopping-district of Trondheim. This road is as straight as you find them in Trondheim, in fact it used to be an air strip....
























Return along the same route. 
















The convertible-season is rather short....
















Time to pay attention, signs are warning against both jams and speed camera.








Another jam-warning sign indicates that we are approaching one of the true bottlenecks of the Trondheim area. And BTW, another right lane exit only, leading to left lane traffic sometimes dominating in both directions on this bypass....








We are keeping to the right towards Byåsen.








This is the cause of all the havoc, this ridiculously narrow bridge called Sluppen bru is one of only to road connections between Byåsen and central Trondheim and the eastern suburbs, and sees more than 21 000 AADT. It ends in a traffic light, and it takes anything from 20 to 40 minutes to go through here during rush hour. 








Another picture, from NRK:








Finally it seems like some improvments are on their way, with a revamp of the E6-intersection, a four lane bridge and even a tunnel up to Byåsen. It will be rather steep, however, and consequently will be four lanes as well. The time table is skechy at the moment, however, and it will of course be toll financed....


----------



## Snowguy716

The pictures are all really neat. The landscaping is oddly familiar, despite me never having been to Norway.

I'm from northern Minnesota, and many parts of northern Minnesota are very similar, though less mountainous. Some of those shots could easily be I-35 going into Duluth, Minnesota on Lake Superior, though. 

Also, the way the freeways are set up running through urban areas reminds me distinctly of many freeways in Minneapolis/St. Paul, where traditional 4 lane traffic light controlled highways were converted into controlled access freeways. The result is a very narrow 4 lane freeway with walls up against the sides.. with buildings right up to the edge on the other side. 

I think it's the large amount of conifers and the granite looking bedrock with that reddish color that reminds me so much of Minnesota.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Very American.


----------



## Schweden

My first thought was Alaska. Seriously


----------



## Timon91

^^Could be, but AFAIK there are no shiny crash barriers in Alaska


----------



## Oslo 5

*This bridge is in use*



Ingenioren said:


> Endingpoint of motorway, the bridge above is not being used for anything, one of many ambitious road-plans from the past in Grorudvalley that never came to be:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi
> 
> That bridge is in fact in use for what it was intended for, not for any motorway scheme, but to connect the to part of the old graveyard bisected by the motorway in the 1970s. The bridge was built extra wide to shield the funeral processions using the bridge, it has only a narrow single lane of pavement but wide grass shoulders.
> 
> As for Rv44 mention earlier, that one is built as an expressway and was never intended to be an motorway, it cud of course has been built as one, but that is an economical, and political decision. And the reason for building E6 as a tree lane expressway, not a four lane motorway in the mid 90s was just the same. Until late 1990s, (almost) all highways with AADT up to 45.000 were built as single carriageway expressways (the Norwegian Motorway class B), as you most all know. The reason this has come to a change at all is due to traffic safety concerns.
Click to expand...


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

^^ That was the rather obscure piece of fact! It does sounds like a quite strange way of spending public money, though.


Timon91/Schweden regarding "Alaskan" Trondheim:
:lol: In terms of latitude, Trondheim at 63° 36 is more than two degrees north of Anchorage, but south of Fairbanks. But latitude is not everything...



Snowguy716 said:


> The pictures are all really neat. The landscaping is oddly familiar, despite me never having been to Norway.
> 
> I'm from northern Minnesota, and many parts of northern Minnesota are very similar, though less mountainous. Some of those shots could easily be I-35 going into Duluth, Minnesota on Lake Superior, though.
> 
> Also, the way the freeways are set up running through urban areas reminds me distinctly of many freeways in Minneapolis/St. Paul, where traditional 4 lane traffic light controlled highways were converted into controlled access freeways. The result is a very narrow 4 lane freeway with walls up against the sides.. with buildings right up to the edge on the other side.
> 
> I think it's the large amount of conifers and the granite looking bedrock with that reddish color that reminds me so much of Minnesota.


Thank you for your nice comment. Actually, I used to know Minnesota fairly well, at least Twin Cities area, but have not been there for several years now. As a general note, there is no doubt that the Twin Cities, or Minnesota, road system in general is far superior to what you find in Norway. On the other hand, public transport and, especially, bicycle and foot path network is far better here, at least as compared with Twin Cities 15 years ago. I guess it is possible to argue that the Duluth area and the Trondheim area has some similarities. They are both close to water, have a decent harbor (probably Duluth's bigger, and anyway you cannot see the Trondheim harbor in any of my pictures....) and there are a lot of trees and moose and deer both places  However, you won't find a four lane road to relatively small towns like Two Harbors in Norway, and you (hopefully) never will.

Other than that, we are all named Ole and Lena and say "uffda" all the time :lol:


ChrisZwolle said:


> Very American.


Perhaps. We have the yellow paint on the roads (but not on divided highways), and most Norwegian shopping is now in a rather US manner concentrated to quite large shopping malls outside the city, but I guess this is not unique to Norway. Also, Norwegian cities are also dominated by single family houses, although this is slowly changing, especially in the larger cities. However, if you ventured into the central parts of Trondheim, the feel of the city is definately more European than American:
































Trondheim is btw more than 1000 years old.

OK, this was perhaps just a little bit OT....


----------



## ElviS77

54°26′S 3°24′E;36127127 said:


> OK, this was perhaps just a little bit OT....


OT perhaps, but still worth mentioning. And as you know, most cities up here have a very European feel to their centres, partly due to the fact that they're pretty old. Of course, no Norwegian city was much to be considered before the industrial revolution, but still... In addition - and more on topic, perhaps - the age of the cities have caused one or two problems for modern-day traffic volumes as most streets are narrow and areas to build new highways and motorways in are restricted. This is made even more difficult by the fact that most cities are encircled by virtually unspoilt nature whose recreational value is held in high regard. 

There was, of course, a brief period in the 60s and 70s where basically anything went, old neighbourhoods were torn down and the natural beauty of surrounding areas wasn't considered all that important. Thus, you'll find seriously overdimentioned highway bridges etc here and there. However, most such scemes were eventually abandoned, typically leaving a few underdimentioned highways to deal with ever increasing traffic. Gradually, these have been improved into dual-lane carriageways or even motorways, but since the 1970s, no urban or suburban motorway have been designed to deal with future traffic volumes. Even the latest projects along the busiest corridors are only designed to deal with the current AADT... if that. The new, 400+ million euro urban tunnel through Bjørvika has an expected AADT in the 110-120,000 range, still, it's just a 3+3. Tunnels where you're likely to see an AADT of 40,000 are going to be 2+2. That's fine, it's just that one lane in each direction will become a bus lane.

To avoid any unnecessary confrontations (and only face the necessary ones): I like the fact that they've saved nature and some old urban areas. Still, when you're actually spending hundreds of millions of euros on infrastructure improvement, why not do it properly..?


----------



## Ingenioren

Thanks for clearing it up, i have that Knut Boge book lying around, but never got around to read it;D

Some pictures from a trip down to Østfold:

The missing E6-link in Akershus, here we are using the new roadway as the old is being upgraded - it will be 6 lanes for a short stretch here:









Almost the entire length of the new motorway will be tunneled:









The old road has only 1 intersection, and i guess will feed that one with local trafic, don't know if they will alter it in any way to allow bikers or anything:









One old looking tunnel, the trafic is a bit high for this road atm. so i will be glad when i don't have to use it anymore:









In the other end the E6/E18 intersection is getting redone:









Another short 6-lane stretch here:









E6 outside of Moss, all of E6 trough Østfold was built as a 2 lane gradefree road and then upgraded:









Just north of Råde/Fredrikstad intersection:









E6 passes right next to Råde village:









Road-art:









New distance signs, Svinesund is the border - an important destination for many border-shoppers:









For a few km, the asfalt is shiny red:









New bridge (2006):









The motorway from this point opened in 2008:









A part of the road is 5 lanes:









Exit to the old E6, now Rv118 for roadworks:









Getting closer to Sarpsborg, the tall chimney shows the way:









Sarpsborg northern exit:









Bus-stop, here you can take the bus to f.example Berlin:









New round-about:









Still called Old E6 in the peoples tongue, must be a long time ago it ran here tough:









Rv118 cuts trough the heart of Sarpsborg with a lot of light-intersections:









Sarpsborg sentrum is right across that bridge:









Turning back to E6, the Rv114 to Skiptvet is a fun road - for some other time:









Shouldn't E6 south have a motorway symbol aswell?









Back on E6 south:









Rv109 exit, the tall monolith there is lit at night:









Closeup, it's located right at the entry of Sandesund bridge - 1,5 km long. Right bridge new, left is old:









The bridge has overhead signs:









Another new bridge, the old one here was to short, as all the bridges on the stretch built in the 90s, most of the bridges was simply extended, but this one had to go. The stretch past Moss from the 70s (?) were built with long bridges, so nothing had to be done there... 









Continuing south:


















Southern exit to Fredrikstad and Skjeberg Station (Where no trains stop):


















Trees has been planted in the slopes, this road used to be planted full of lupines (beautiful purple flowers planted in the 90s) but those are now black-listed now:


















Another art-piece, the part Halden - Border is the only part built from scratch, it's also the narrowest - but still 100km/h. All of Østfold is 100km/h except for the border itself and toll-stations.









The view from Rv21 entering Halden:









Rv21 is a wide street here:









This is Rv22 Østre Tangent, built in the early 90s as a bypass of mainstreet, look at those towering road-lamps:









Another part of Rv22 in the suburbs of Halden:









County-road trough Northern Halden nicknamed the airstrip, not surpricingly 50km/h is hardly driven here:









Back on Rv21 towards E6:









E6 ran here in 2005 being a nightmare with kms of jam in the summer, now it's Rv21 /Rv118:









A few evening shots of E6 going north:









Rv118, Ingedal exit #3:









Love the look of the asfalt here:









Rv110 exit #4:


















Back in Sarpsborg:


----------



## eiriksmil

Lookin' forward to be able to drive from my buddy in Råholt to Strömstad on four-lane E6 only 

What do you guys think is the motorway stretch in Norway with the best scenery? I might have to go with E6n past Sharif and onwards, on a sunny day the fields are beautiful! Different strokes for different folks I guess though, haha.

We need to see some pics from E6 north of Trondheim to Finnmark (or someone need to tell me where they are posted if they are)


----------



## Ingenioren

My vote would go to the Svinesund bridge - except for that E6 follows the flat parts of Østfold as i shown in pictues here. Some of the motorways around Bergen offers nice scenary aswell.. =) Groruddalen is sweet for spotting commieblocks;D


----------



## Schweden

Do you norweigan guys have any motorway pictures from the more "mountainous parts" of the country? is there any motorways there?


----------



## IceCheese

^^Nope, that's too expensive And if they were, they would be in a tunnel.

My favorite highway stretch is also in Romerike, coming from Oslo when you just get over the hilltop and start the descending down towards Hellerudsletta. The view and landscape is fantastic!:drool: (especially in sunrise, as the last time I was there)




Ingenioren said:


> Closeup, it's located right at the entry of Sandesund bridge - 1,5 km long. Right bridge new, left is old:


Statens Vegvesen is so full of BS when they say they don't pay for decorations in road projects in the Bjørvika-airwent project, when they clearly fund stuff like this. Completely insane:bash:




Ingenioren said:


> Shouldn't E6 south have a motorway symbol aswell?


No, because you have to pass a bridge (tunnel?) to get there..


Btw, what happened to Ingenioren, the bicycle-freak? Got a new ride you just can't lay your hands off?


----------



## Ingenioren

I'm sure they will fund it eventually ;D Reason being here and other art-project is trafic-safety, while the Bjørvika-piece can't be defined as one... :nuts: 

Still a bike-freak, but i'm also a "tøffel" and i can't seem to get my wife with me on long bike-trips... ;D

Svinesund is about as mountainous it gets, poor tourists crossing the border thinking they are in the land of Fjords are very surpriced to see the flatlands following for hundreds of kilometers..


----------



## Ingenioren

Caos for 6 months on Oslos most important road:

From 26. October - due to roadworks on Bjørvikatunnelen, one lane in each direction will be closed on E18 trough Festningstunnelen, where 6 lanes struggles to float trafic and rush-hour lasts almost all day:

http://www.vegvesen.no/Vegprosjekter/Bjorvika/Nyhetsarkiv/100951.cms

One eastern lane will pass into the local road system past Havnelageret, and one will use the westbound tunnel!


----------



## Snowguy716

54°26′S 3°24′E;36127127 said:


> Thank you for your nice comment. Actually, I used to know Minnesota fairly well, at least Twin Cities area, but have not been there for several years now. As a general note, there is no doubt that the Twin Cities, or Minnesota, road system in general is far superior to what you find in Norway. On the other hand, public transport and, especially, bicycle and foot path network is far better here, at least as compared with Twin Cities 15 years ago. I guess it is possible to argue that the Duluth area and the Trondheim area has some similarities. They are both close to water, have a decent harbor (probably Duluth's bigger, and anyway you cannot see the Trondheim harbor in any of my pictures....) and there are a lot of trees and moose and deer both places  However, you won't find a four lane road to relatively small towns like Two Harbors in Norway, and you (hopefully) never will.
> 
> Other than that, we are all named Ole and Lena and say "uffda" all the time :lol:


Well, I'm only 23 years old, but I remember my family driving along Lake Superior to Lutsen on MN 61 before they built the tunnels. There were some pretty scary hairpin turns jutting out over the lake. Of course they have since built tunnels. I think the 4-lane expressway was part of that pretty massive project.

Here you can see the (at the time of this photo) recently completed Silver Creek Cliff tunnel, and the old road bed to the left.








This photo from the Dept. of Transportation.

But yes, I don't want to derail this topic any further. It's just kind of funny how so many Norwegian settlers came to a place that wasn't so different from home after all. And your comment about Norwegians preferring single family homes: We're exactly the same way. We all seem to have this idea that we're all "small town folk" who just ended up in the big city... and so we want to retain that small town character. The result has been massive urban sprawl.. still, Minneapolis is the 2nd best city in the country for cyclists, and our mass transit is really starting to get off the ground.


----------



## IceCheese

Ingenioren said:


> Caos for 6 months on Oslos most important road:
> 
> From 26. October - due to roadworks on Bjørvikatunnelen, one lane in each direction will be closed on E18 trough Festningstunnelen, where 6 lanes struggles to float trafic and rush-hour lasts almost all day:
> 
> http://www.vegvesen.no/Vegprosjekter/Bjorvika/Nyhetsarkiv/100951.cms
> 
> One eastern lane will pass into the local road system past Havnelageret, and one will use the westbound tunnel!


Well, then it's not hard to imagine why the westbound part of Bjørvikatunnelen will be done 6 months later than the eastbound..


----------



## Ingenioren

^ They only mention 6 months of closedown tough, logically one would think it would be followed by 6 more months after this as you mention ;D One year of endless jams, wonder how many will park their cars because of this O3 is already struggling with high costs on projects and fewer cars trough the tolls, this will force cut-down in projects, longer timespan or higher tolls?


----------



## NorthStar77

Festningstunnellen is already one huge jamhno:


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

ElviS77 said:


> The new, 400+ million euro urban tunnel through Bjørvika has an expected AADT in the 110-120,000 range, still, it's just a 3+3. Tunnels where you're likely to see an AADT of 40,000 are going to be 2+2. That's fine, it's just that one lane in each direction will become a bus lane.


I agree, why not build it properly why they have the chance. Adding a few lanes now is far far cheaper than having to dig it all up again in a few years, but I guess "adding a few lanes" just is not PC...

Assuming that some of these cars rather could have used PT, this would not have been so bad though, if there were proper bypasses east-west around Oslo, however, enabling trucks from for instance Alnabru (train freight terminal) or Drammen harbor to reach their final destinations. However, there are no such bypasses around Oslo, nor plans for it...

The same has been happening in Trondheim, BTW. The new northern "bypass" of Trondheim will only be a normal two-lane road with pleny of roundabouts. With 18 000 AADT on the opening day, it will already be underdimensioned. The result will be that traffic will continue to be high through the city center. Even worse is the new bus lanes in Elgeseter gate. Sure, you have a achieved a few percent higher bus traffic, but the 35 000 cars in the remaining single lane in each direction on this city street with traffic lights, pedestrian crossings etc. is driving in the jam the whole day now, and in addition a lot of traffic is diverted to long detours just to avoid the whole street. PT might be seen as a winner, but certainly not the environment.

It is a bit interesting that that forces within the government now want to ban cars with pure combustion engines already from 2015. What would then be the environmental argument for PT vs cars, area use?

(Personally I prefer the bike, BTW!)


eiriksmil said:


> What do you guys think is the motorway stretch in Norway with the best scenery? I might have to go with E6n past Sharif and onwards, on a sunny day the fields are beautiful! Different strokes for different folks I guess though, haha.
> 
> We need to see some pics from E6 north of Trondheim to Finnmark (or someone need to tell me where they are posted if they are)


I think there are some pictures in this thread already, but it is a long long road....


IceCheese said:


> ^^Nope, that's too expensive And if they were, they would be in a tunnel.
> 
> My favorite highway stretch is also in Romerike, coming from Oslo when you just get over the hilltop and start the descending down towards Hellerudsletta. The view and landscape is fantastic!:drool: (especially in sunrise, as the last time I was there)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statens Vegvesen is so full of BS when they say they don't pay for decorations in road projects in the Bjørvika-airwent project, when they clearly fund stuff like this. Completely insane:bash:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, because you have to pass a bridge (tunnel?) to get there..
> 
> 
> Btw, what happened to Ingenioren, the bicycle-freak? Got a new ride you just can't lay your hands off?





Ingenioren said:


> My vote would go to the Svinesund bridge - except for that E6 follows the flat parts of Østfold as i shown in pictues here. Some of the motorways around Bergen offers nice scenary aswell.. =) Groruddalen is sweet for spotting commieblocks;D


Rating the highway with the best scenery would be a far more interesting question, as most motorways are located in the part of the country with the most boring scenery. However,my vote probably also goes to Svinesund, and certainly not Hellerudsletta nor Groruddalen. (You guys were kidding, right?)

I am not very familiar with the motorways around Bergen, but probably the new motorway along Mjøsa will offer some nice views (as the current road does), and E6 south (Okstadbakkene) and north of Trondheim is also quite nice, IMHO, but not yet motorways (the former will probably be motorway within 10 years, however).


Snowguy716 said:


> But yes, I don't want to derail this topic any further. It's just kind of funny how so many Norwegian settlers came to a place that wasn't so different from home after all.


I hear this a lot, but I cannot really agree. Most Norwegians settlers moved to southern and eastern Minnesota, i.e. on the Praire, whose farmland was far superior to what they were used to and very dissimilar from the Norway. Myself I had quite a difficult time to orientate myself in Twin Cities, because I no longer had any hills to look at that could give any hint of my location....

It is true that the Lake Superior area, at least the north-western bank, is somewhat more rugged, but only to such a degree that it has some resemblance to the least rugged parts of Norway, and AFAIK, only a minority of the Norwegians went there.

Climatewise Minnesota is also very different from Norway, as Minnesota is much more extreme in both summer and winter.

Other than that, I like Minnesota a lot, and Minneapolis is a vibrant and interesting city where I have met a lot of nice people!


----------



## IceCheese

^^I understand that some Norwegians only associate beautiful nature with mountains and valleys, but is it also OK to respect that others also see the beauty in other elements of our country? Surely we living in the lowlands live in dramatic scenery too.... I can try to take a picture, if you'd like...


----------



## Ingenioren

I agree that the hills of southern Romerike offers some very nice views like the one from E6 leaving Oslo  

Nicest highway might be Rv63, altough i have many other favourites aswell:









Maybe an upgrade of Rv23, Rv22 and Rv35 could make act more like bypasses, i know my brother uses Rv23 when he drives from Sandvika to Ås. And Halden-folks use Rv22 to Gardermoen... 

Electric cars or not, there is no more room for everyone to drive in larger cities, this argument is used widely in Oslo, Fredrikstad and Stavanger atleast. i'm with you on the bike - no doubt the best alternative on short distances (5 > km) If only the law-makers would pay more respect to bikes....hno:


----------



## IceCheese

Ingenioren said:


> Maybe an upgrade of Rv23, Rv22 and Rv35 could make act more like bypasses, i know my brother uses Rv23 when he drives from Sandvika to Ås.


^^I would think it was both much cheaper and quicker to use the train between those two destinations. No train change or anything... Well, unless he works at any other time than 8-16, though...


----------



## Ingenioren

It's freezing to count trafic in an intersection outside for hours, so thuss the car is a big pluss.. ;D


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

^^ Sounds like a lot of fun, anyway :lol:



Ingenioren said:


> I agree that the hills of southern Romerike offers some very nice views like the one from E6 leaving Oslo
> 
> Nicest highway might be Rv63, altough i have many other favourites aswell.
> 
> Maybe an upgrade of Rv23, Rv22 and Rv35 could make act more like bypasses, i know my brother uses Rv23 when he drives from Sandvika to Ås. And Halden-folks use Rv22 to Gardermoen...
> 
> Electric cars or not, there is no more room for everyone to drive in larger cities, this argument is used widely in Oslo, Fredrikstad and Stavanger atleast. i'm with you on the bike - no doubt the best alternative on short distances (5 > km) If only the law-makers would pay more respect to bikes....hno:


The argument is perhaps used, but is it correct? Only about 15 % of travels in our 4 biggest is by PT, compared with 60 % by car and 24 % by foot/bicycle, although the car share is smaller in the central part of the city. At the same time the car traffic in the central city areas have actually decreased lately, mainly due to restrictions in parking and closure of streets etc. It is thus probably possible to increasing the capacity somewhat with relatively inexpensive measures, if increased car traffic no longer is linked to increased (local) pollution and hence degredation of air quality of the city.

Energywise I am also a bit unsure. It has been claimed that electric cars have the smallest energy use of all kinds of kinds of motorized traffic, but this may not be true anymore compared with the bus if the electric cars no longer are confined to the "mini" class. However, one advantage compared with combustion driven cars is of course that the cold start issue is eliminated. Another aspect is that an enhanced transport network in the forms of road might generate more traffic, partly due to increased suburban sprawl, both being undesirable.

Personally I do not have any answer to these questions, but nobody really seems to have addressed them properly. This must surely be a good assignment for a studen like you, or perhaps you will have to wait until your PhD....

Regarding the best looking highway, there are just so many to pick from in Norway. Obvious candidates would be Valdresflya, E39 Ørsta, Geiranger, Trollstigen, E136 Romsdal, Rv 17 (Helgeland) and basically most of northern Norway. I guess also Atlanterhavsvegen deserves to be mentioned,a favourite spot for car commercials:
















Here from a shooting by Alfa Romeo:










PS: I would say 10 km bike ride is OK!

[OT]


IceCheese said:


> ^^I understand that some Norwegians only associate beautiful nature with mountains and valleys, but is it also OK to respect that others also see the beauty in other elements of our country? Surely we living in the lowlands live in dramatic scenery too.... I can try to take a picture, if you'd like...


I am sorry if I was disrespectful. However, I know very well the beauty of many landscapes of Romerike (area northeast of Oslo including the Gardermoen airport), after all I have lived there for several years, although "dramatic" perhaps is not the word I would use. However, when it comes to landscapes, the competition is quite stiff in Norway.....

However, my (perhaps disrespectful) comments regarding the scenery around Hellerudsletta and Groruddalen was not related to the landscape itself, but the human activity during the last century, leaving the landscape littered with huge powerlines, trashy warehouses and retail/industrial buildings mixed with uninspiring suburban sprawl (Skjetten and Korset) or Commie-buildings (Groruddalen). Sorry, I do not see the charm, but as you imply, when it comes to taste, it is hard to have a sensible discussion....... 
[/OT]


----------



## Timon91

I think that I've seen this bridge in some Dutch TV programme about travelling. Beautiful


----------



## Ingenioren

The national tourist routes:

Rv55 - Sognefjellet:









Rv258 - Gamle Strynefjellet:









Rv17 - Helgeland Nord:









E10 - Lofoten:









Rv13 - Hardanger:









Rv27 - Rondane:









Fv (Hamningberg) - Varanger:









Rv889 - Havøysund:









Rv86 - Senja:









Rv76 - Helgeland Sør:









Rv64 - Atlanterhavsveien:









Rv63 - Trollstigen:









Rv13 - Gaularfjellet:









Fv(Snøvegen) - Aurland:









Rv13 - Ryfylke:









Rv44 - Jæren:









Rv51 - Valdresflye:









Rv82 - Andøya:









http://www.turistveg.no/


----------



## Ingenioren

A few shot from the new Rv48 stretch:





































http://www.bygg.no/id/44007?showImage=3


----------



## IceCheese

54°26′S 3°24′E;36302178 said:


> _shortened_


I wasn't really saying that these parts of road-Norway is the most beautiful. It was just that I understood the question by Schweden to be about typical motorway class A roads, and there aren't many of these showing spectacular views of anything. Usually they don't offer any view at all, being descended into the terrain, or having huge sound-barriers around them. Therefor I find the road I mentioned as _dramatic_, based on when you drive from a place with ~20-30 meter high stone-walls on both sides, and then you get to this downhill part, where you get this great view over this great valley.
I see I wrote "highway" in my previous post, and maybe that's where it went wrong. Sometimes I use both highway and motorway for the same stuff, and Iæm sorry for that.


And me, I'm not a fan of Grorud-valley either


----------



## Ingenioren

^ There is a bit cool view of Drammen and Sandvika from E18... ;D I would say Bjørvika, but that is not a real motorway... ;D


----------



## arashmordad

HOLY SHIEßE, I would love to ride through those highways (except the one with the wave comin at it). Amazing land scapes dude, tussen takk.


----------



## Schweden

Ingenioren said:


> The national tourist routes:
> Rv86 - Senja:



Where's the road? :nuts:


----------



## Ingenioren

^ I am wondering the same thing...


----------



## Þróndeimr

Some pictures of E6 between Levanger and Røra in Nord Trøndelag.

First picture from the 90km/h in Verdal, northernmost 90km/h road we have in Trøndelag.



























Railroad crossing the road, about time to get these removed from E6?


















E6 outside Levanger, also a 90km/h road.


















Then i turn back north again, from Verdal to Røra.




































At Røra, continue the road to Steinkjer and north, take left to Riksvei 755 through Inderøy, Mosvik and Leksvik.









Riksvei 755.









755 across the preserved Straumen bridge.









And across the much larger and preserved Skarnsundsbrua, only bridge crossing Trondheimsfjorden, and about the only 
real gateway to Fosen penninsula.


----------



## Ingenioren

Thanks for showing us! Atleast you still have those 90km/h roads, at Østlandet those without barriers have been turned to 80 km/h (Except Rv25 maybe?). Majestic bridge you got there  Isn't that rail-crossing about to be replaced by a bridge? I believe it to be the last remaining on E6? Quite traficated one actually... I remember first time going to Trondheim - i tought i was very far away from home untill i saw the sign pointing to Narvik... ;D


----------



## Grauthue

Þróndeimr said:


>


They should clear away trees this close to the road IMO. Not that I have anything agains trees, but if a moose suddenly runs out from between these trees you have precious little time to react hno:

Thanks for the nice pictures anyway.


----------



## Þróndeimr

Ingenioren said:


> Isn't that rail-crossing about to be replaced by a bridge?


No, that is new E6 Steinkjer South, and Riksvei from Inderøya gonna go over, the one you see here.

I would say Verdal - Levanger is well ready for a 2x2 road, that road is crowded and impossible to get on from other roads, and its the only road going through so.

@ Grauthue, yes thats true, but its not that dangerous right there, since thats right next to Verdal, there aren't any moose in that forest there.


----------



## Red-Lion

OH, were they allowed to landfill all that land in the river opening after all, remember reading something about that some time ago.

On the subject of numbering the new "county roads" i guess they will get county numbers from 1-100?


----------



## metasmurf

Cheers for the pics Þróndeimr


----------



## Ingenioren

1-100 is far from covering them all, don't you think 1-1000? But i think they will keep the numbers as they are, how much costs for new signs on every single road?:nuts: I think the roads keept by the state will change to green signs, else: Business as usual...


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

Thank you again for the great images, Þróndeimr. Although I love winter, it is 
always nice to see how our nature changes from rather grey to green to a degree that it almost hurt in a matter of days.


Þróndeimr said:


> And across the much larger and preserved Skarnsundsbrua, only bridge crossing Trondheimsfjorden, and about the only
> real gateway to Fosen penninsula.


Probably, most people would regard the Rørvik jetty as the main gateway to Fosen, does not the traffic here dwarf the one at Skarnsundbrua? (Edit: Yes, AADT at Rørvik-Flakk is almost 3x the traffic across Skarnsund)

(Rørvik is at the Fosen side of the main ferry connection across the Trondheim fjord)


Grauthue said:


> They should clear away trees this close to the road IMO. Not that I have anything agains trees, but if a moose suddenly runs out from between these trees you have precious little time to react hno:


So very true. Unfortunately this is a huge problem in Norway, especially compared with Sweden, where the forest around even minor roads are meticulously cleared. In Norway you see dense forest even around relative recent major highways, like here.


Ingenioren said:


> Thanks for showing us! Atleast you still have those 90km/h roads, at Østlandet those without barriers have been turned to 80 km/h (Except Rv25 maybe?).


Actually, as I remembers it, the only 90-roads of NT south of Verdal are the parts with dividers, but I my memory not always serves me right... Anyway, Rv 3 from E6 to Løten is 90 without divider as well.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

Ingenioren said:


> 1-100 is far from covering them all, don't you think 1-1000? But i think they will keep the numbers as they are, how much costs for new signs on every single road?:nuts: I think the roads keept by the state will change to green signs, else: Business as usual...


We also have to keep the option open that a change of government in a few months probably will stall this stupid reform altogether.


----------



## Ingenioren

Really? Why are høyre/sentrum against it? I like the reform, since the counties are in charge of PT i would like them to have more of an impact on infrastructure-funds... I hope this will give for example Rogaland the choice to fund Bybanen at the expense of Ryfast or Sandnes Ring...

Ah! I tought i read somewhere Rv3 changed all to 80 km/h... So they left out the best part, good! Rv705 also had one, don't know if they changed that one since it's so low on trafic.. (Great shortcut road to NT.) And maybe Rv26 also... Hm, it comes to me now! Dovrefjell?


----------



## IceCheese

I think the right side is against counties in general. They want larger regions, and to kiss the current ones goodbye...

And Rv3 between Løten and Kolomoen is a "Motortrafikkvei", so I guess that's why they get 90 km/h limit.


----------



## Ingenioren

I forgot E18 Østfold, is 90km/h aswell  Seems a bit random wich roads get 90 and wich get 80 to me.... E18 from Tusenfryd to the motorway should be 90km/h..


Draft for Handlingsplan 2010-2013 is out
http://www.vegvesen.no/binary?id=170301


----------



## ElviS77

Þróndeimr said:


> First picture from the 90km/h in Verdal, northernmost 90km/h road we have in Trøndelag.


Really? The newest section south of Grong was 90 kph quite recently. Has it been removed?


----------



## IceCheese

Ingenioren said:


> I forgot E18 Østfold, is 90km/h aswell  Seems a bit random wich roads get 90 and wich get 80 to me.... E18 from Tusenfryd to the motorway should be 90km/h..


Yet again a motortrafikkvei. Doesn't seem that random after all...


----------



## Ingenioren

Mosseveien is also Motortrafikkvei, a short piece of it is even motorvei... ;D


----------



## IceCheese

I think they made it 80 due to heavy traffic and many meeting-collisions + the classic arguement of making it a less desirable commuter route...


----------



## Ingenioren

I believe they will put barriers in all it's length later this year, and in the meantime cut it down one lane, like they did temporary in Østfold on E6, but ofcourse if it turns out they will make it wider instead and keep 3 lanes i will jump for joy!

If they wanted to boost different route, this doesn't make sense tough: Ringnesdiagonalen with it's decent standard have been 70km/h for all years i have driven, even that is Motortrafikkvei... What route did they want people to take? Gamle Mossevei?:lol:


----------



## IceCheese

I guess a 70 is better than the 50 of Mosseveien... Yes, they will put out those concrete barriers, but I think it even was next year. They ordered them in 2007, and I think there actually is a 3 year delivery on them. Don't know if those barriers mean that they will cut down on the lanes, but I guess they will..


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

^^
1. This being Norway, there are of course regulations that are written down regarding which roads could have 90. (NA-rundskriv 01/16 "Kriterier for fartsgrenser utenfor tettbygd strøk" which I can't find online anymore) However, the reason that it seems a bit random is perhaps that 90 km/h is an exception to the general rule in Norway, and the fact that some roads that originally had 90, later have been reduced to 80 without any changes in the regulations. New regulations are probably underway, BTW. 
2. In the beginning, at least, the great majority of roads where the speed were reduced from 90 to 80 were motortrafikkvei/Autostrasse/expressways (E6 Østfold, Gardermoen-Lillehammer, Trondheim-Stjørdal, various sections E18, E39 Klett-Orkanger etc. etc.), whereas the speeed on other roads, like E6 Dovre, rv3 Østerdalen and many sections in Northern Norway, were allowed to keep their 90-limit. I.e., traffic volume and the presence of tunnels were larger 90 km/h killers than the width of road, standard of intersections and whether they were motortrafikkvei (Autostrasse). Later this picture has been a bit modified, however, as for instance the speed on rv 3 Østerdalen and E6 Dovre has been reduced to 80.


Ingenioren said:


> Really? Why are høyre/sentrum against it? I like the reform, since the counties are in charge of PT i would like them to have more of an impact on infrastructure-funds... I hope this will give for example Rogaland the choice to fund Bybanen at the expense of Ryfast or Sandnes Ring...


The main problem is that the counties probably will not have the funds nor competence to do neither, and there is no compelling evidence that the counties will have a higher priority on PT than the government. In addition, a large majority of the new county roads are rural. In the cities, the counties have very little influence on the road sector anyway, most projects are part of deals between the municipalities and the national government. IMO, the state should handle PT between different municipalies, whereas the municipalies should be allowed to handle the PT within their borders. This would be more rational, since a lot of the commuter traffic in fact goes across the county borders. Also, it would break the current assymmetry in PT funding, where the national government today plays a major role running and subsidizing NSB PT in the capital area, but is absent in local traffic in most of the rest of the country.

My main objection to the reform is that tasks in the society that are delegated down to local governments tends to be underfunded. The reason is that the national government will say that they no longer has any responsibility in the matter, and the local government will blame the central authority for not handing over enough funds. In addition, it takes a good deal of competence to develop and run infrastructure. It could be that such competence could be developed in each county, but it certainly will not be the cheapest way of doing it. Finally, with the proposed structure,there will some rather large chunks of the country that will be far away from the national roads. For instance, the coast between Kristiandsund and Bodø, a large region in area of what, 100 000 (?) citizens including Þróndeimr's Fosen and towns like Namsos, Brønnøysund and Sandnessjøen and with a lot of export transport needs will be completely without "riksveier". To fix the roads here requires major investments, and I sincerly doubt that the counties will ever get the required financial muscles. 

It is a reason that the counties no longer run the hospitals. Infrastructure is IMO equally important. (As already mentioned, the parties to the right in the Norwegian political spectrum want to abolish the counties altogether, arguing that in a small country like Norway, two levels of government would be far more efficient. Hence, with a change of government, the highway reform may be one of the first (and easiest) things to change for them.)


----------



## Ingenioren

Can't the counties simply outsource the planning to private engineering companies?

This article claims the reform is a way of avoiding tunnel-regulations from EU:

http://www.abcnyheter.no/node/89036


----------



## IceCheese

54°26′S 3°24′E;36899096 said:


> Also, it would break the current assymmetry in PT funding, where the national government today plays a major role running and subsidizing NSB PT in the capital area, but is absent in local traffic in most of the rest of the country.


Where do you get this from? It is correct that it is the government through Samferdselsdepartementet that orders train traffic/routes from NSB, but the subsidizing of NSB's original price-level is covered by Akershus county (+some from Oslo too) through the public transport company Ruter# AS.

About the county responsibility, I suggest counties to start making transportplans like Oslopakkene, preferably with multiple counties cooperating to tie regions better together. That's my vision.


----------



## -Pino-

Norsko said:


> Ingenioren: Great to finally see some good shots of one of our motorways, this is rare to find on the web. Ever wondering about showing some of the signshots here http://www.brombeer.net/signs/ ? (hint hint )


Norway's been added !


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

Ingenioren said:


> Can't the counties simply outsource the planning to private engineering companies?


It does not help with good advisors if the management is unprofessional and without longterm strategy, which has mostly been the case in the counties. 


> This article claims the reform is a way of avoiding tunnel-regulations from EU:
> 
> http://www.abcnyheter.no/node/89036


I do not think this is the motivation for the reform. At least Vegvesenet was against it.


IceCheese said:


> Where do you get this from? It is correct that it is the government through Samferdselsdepartementet that orders train traffic/routes from NSB, but the subsidizing of NSB's original price-level is covered by Akershus county (+some from Oslo too) through the public transport company Ruter# AS.


This is getting off topic. I have tried to confirm your claim, but I have not suceeded. 

What is for everybody to read is the transport chapters of the national budget of Norway. I don't bother to translate as this is hardly interesting for foreigners:

NSB (subsidies for the national railway company, and except the two latter posts mostly support to south-eastern Norway):

Nærtrafikk med om lag 840 mill. kr (mostly Oslo-area)
InterCitytrafikk med om lag 220 mill. kr 
Region- og matetrafikk med om lag 225 mill. kr
Gjøvikbanen 75 mill. kr
Nattog med om lag 155 mill. kr 
Fjerntrafikk på Nordlandsbanen (Trondheim – Bodø) med om lag 70 mill. kr.
(Trondheim-Bodø is the only long distance train that receives any direct subsidies)

Sum 1 724 million (including some other posts, I assume)

Jernbaneverket (mostly investments which are almost entirely in the Oslo-area): 7 073 million

Sum government railway funding 8 835 million


From Ruter's budget I can read that they pay 505 million for ticket-cooperation with NSB, but nowhere in neither the transport budget or anywhere else in the national budget or in the budget of NSB or Ruter can I find any hint that these money partly reimburses the national money (do you have any source for this?). In any case, 505 million is a far cry from the 8.8 billion that is the real cost of running the railway.


----------



## Ingenioren

Design of the new intersection for E6 North at Dal, opens in November:









http://www.eub.no/nyheter/article4344009.ece


----------



## Kjello0

54°26′S 3°24′E;36899096 said:


> ^^
> 2. In the beginning, at least, the great majority of roads where the speed were reduced from 90 to 80 were motortrafikkvei/Autostrasse/expressways (E6 Østfold, Gardermoen-Lillehammer, Trondheim-Stjørdal, various sections E18, E39 Klett-Orkanger etc. etc.), whereas the speeed on other roads, like E6 Dovre, rv3 Østerdalen and many sections in Northern Norway, were allowed to keep their 90-limit.


Never been 90 km/h at E 39 Klett - Orkanger. According to the regulations it's okey to have 90 km/h on a 8,5 meter wide road, but not on a 10 meter wide road.


----------



## Ingenioren

Imo. the roads with rumlefelt should get back their 90km/h:










Are there any roads at all in the west that are 90km/h (Except E39 motorway in Stavanger)? In the North there are many 90 stretches on E6, even on parts to narrow for a yellow line.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

Kjello0 said:


> Never been 90 km/h at E 39 Klett - Orkanger.


What I did not bothered to write was that Klett-Orkanger was as an "old-fashioned" Motorvei B with 90, but the new regulations were introduced before the road was completed, so the change was on paper only.


Kjello0 said:


> According to the regulations it's okey to have 90 km/h on a 8,5 meter wide road, but not on a 10 meter wide road.


Do they really say so? At least the sections of Rv 3 that quite recently were 90 were mostly less than 8.5 m wide, and my guess is that the same is the case with some of the 90-zones of northern Norway. It kind of makes sense, though. Everything else being equal, a road of width 7 m with less than 1000 AADT (meaning it goes mostly through desolate areas) is probably safer than a 10 m wide rode with 15 000 AADT.


----------



## Red-Lion

I don't think there are any 90 km/h roads except the motorway in Rogaland, there was some (5?) years ago, but it's "nerfed" to 80 km/h now!


----------



## Ingenioren

Some renders of Ring 3, Sinsen the tunnel will be ready in 2013. The intersection in front has been there for a long time, now the "motorway" goes above ground in the same route:









Large:
http://www.vegvesen.no/binary?id=169147










More:
http://www.vegvesen.no/Vegprosjekter/Ring3/Lørentunnelen


----------



## Grauthue

^^

The cylinder there, is it a ventilation tower?


----------



## Ingenioren

Yes, there will be one in each end  Hopefully these towers will interfear with highrise plans at Økern, i think not since Vegvesenet themselves modelled in a few highrises in their study.


----------



## IceCheese

Ingenioren said:


>


Statens Vegvesen should update their model tools. Those bussheds were only used in Akershus, and mostly from the mid-nineties/early 2000s.


----------



## Ingenioren

I had the pleasure of driving the new E16 yesterday - very goodlooking piece of road, unfortunatly it has only 80km/h and not motorway status, not even the motortraficway status, altough mopeds are banned from it, so what's the difference really? 

I took these while driving myself, so they are not that good. 

I like all them yellow flowers along the road. This is accessing the road from new intersection with Rv160:









The road is mostly tunnels, they haven't done the "fake sky" - black top in these. Looks better when it's white imo. 









On the other side, the road will maybe not be given motorway status because of the small shoulders? Altough E18 trough Asker also have these.









One-way exit to Isi, the exit-numbers will be continous with those on E18 from Oslo.









Didn't bother to make a complete intersection here:









New 2-lane bridge at the northern end of the road, i wonder why not 4 lanes.. :


----------



## NorthStar77

Wow, that is a big question, why not 4 lanes all the way? This E16 over sollihøgda is always congested in the rush-hours. I bet it wont take long until they find this out, and lots of money will be used on expanding it... 

I may try the new road myself next weekend


----------



## Grauthue

I would guess they will be building another bridge next to this one when the development continues, so that the bridge in the picture is used for two lanes in the same direction.


----------



## Majestic

Ingenioren said:


> On the other side, the road will maybe not be given motorway status because of the small shoulders? Altough E18 trough Asker also have these.


These crashbarriers don't look solid at all. Are they abundant in Norway?


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

Ingenioren said:


> I had the pleasure of driving the new E16 yesterday - very goodlooking piece of road, unfortunatly it has only 80km/h and not motorway status, not even the motortraficway status, altough mopeds are banned from it, so what's the difference really?
> 
> On the other side, the road will maybe not be given motorway status because of the small shoulders? Altough E18 trough Asker also have these.


This looks like S7:








followed by S5:









The four lane (S7) part might not be motorway because it too short, or the curvature is not good enough?



Ingenioren said:


> New 2-lane bridge at the northern end of the road, i wonder why not 4 lanes.. :


This is Norway, remember?

Technically, though, Vegvesenet may have done the right thing. S5 should according to the standard be used up to 12 000 AADT. Currently Solliehøgda has around 10 500, probably it was even lower when the construction began. Now, Vegvesenet is supposed to build with a capacity enough for 20 years (or was it 30?), but we all know how the Norwegian government always predict ultralow traffic growth. And the result? As NorthStart already has said, an uneccessarily expensive expansion some time in the future when the traffic is way above 12 000.


Majestic said:


> These crashbarriers don't look solid at all. Are they abundant in Norway?


I have seen them some places, but they are not that common yet, but I bet Ingeniøren has the latest on the Norwegian road authorities whims regarding crash barriers.....


----------



## Red-Lion

I'm so annoyed that they keep building narrow shoulder motorways. I don't know what "ÅDT" (Norw. abr. for average daily traffic) is for this road, but there are roads that have 30-40k now and increasing (such as the new E39 in Sandnes), and they don't construct wide shoulder. Really annoying!


----------



## Kjello0

54°26′S 3°24′E;37411178 said:


> The four lane (S7) part might not be motorway because it too short, or the curvature is not good enough?
> 
> 
> This is Norway, remember?
> 
> Technically, though, Vegvesenet may have done the right thing. S5 should according to the standard be used up to 12 000 AADT. Currently Solliehøgda has around 10 500, probably it was even lower when the construction began. Now, Vegvesenet is supposed to build with a capacity enough for 20 years (or was it 30?), but we all know how the Norwegian government always predict ultralow traffic growth. And the result? As NorthStart already has said, an uneccessarily expensive expansion some time in the future when the traffic is way above 12 000.


This road was planed before the new relugations. Back then you were suppose to plan only with the traffic in the opening year. And the traffic between Isi and Bjørum was estimated to 9200 today and therefor is only 2-lane. Yet another great example of Norwegian long therm planning. Over the whole route they are also only estimating with 1% annual growth. So that's why it's only a narrow motorway and not a full size one. 

We should sit down and ask ourself what transportation network we want in 2050. That's 41 years left. In those years we should be able to both build a great road network and a great highspeed railway network. And it should handle traffic high enough as if we were 10 million people in this country. We are the richest country in the world with alot of oil, gas and actually massive amounts of coal benith the oil. Estimated 3000 billion tons coal in the Norwegian sea, Estimated 900 billion known tons in the rest of the world. We won't get poor for a long time. 

And when cars become environmental friendly in the future, activists can't use the environmental card anymore. And when that time comes we need a infrastructure that can handle the traffic.


----------



## Ingenioren

Majestic said:


> These crashbarriers don't look solid at all. Are they abundant in Norway?


Don't worry, they are fine...


----------



## ChrisZwolle

For that 2-lane section; if it's freeflowing, up to 25.000 shouldn't be too big a problem. It's different if it has roundabouts or traffic lights.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

There are a couple of two-lane stretches with 25 000 and above in Norway, but they do not work very well during rush hour. However, the Norwegian standards, is, as far as I understand, (Kjello0 correct me if I say something wrong) mostly set from safety concerns. Between 8 000 and 12 000, the number of fatalities from head-on crashes really start to take off, and that is why highways with AADT numbers in this range are now built with dividers. However, a divided road with just one lane in each direction has some clear disadvantages. One of the biggest drawbacks is that it easily gets blocked, for instance when a truck brakes down. In addition it is close to impossible for emergency vehicles to get through. In addition Norwegian roads can be winding, hilly and slippery, which probably reduces the capacity compared with a highway in say Netherlands. In addition, on some Norwegian roads have a very uneven temporal traffic distribution. A lot of Norwegians commute quite far on a weekly basis, and/or have holiday homes in the mountains or near the coast somewhere. This means that a very large share of the traffic on some highways is consentrated to just Friday and Sunday afternoon, and at the beginning and the end of holidays. Finally, four lane opens up for higher speed limits and less breaking/acceleration. The former is quite important in a long distance country like Norway, the latter is important in order to reduce emissions.


----------



## Kjello0

The number of fatalities from head-on crashes actually takes of from 4000 AADT. But the authorities think it's enough with rumble from 4000 to 8000 AADT. This becouse it will cost to much to make the roads wide enough for barriers, and the money saved on deaths and accidents don't defend the costs. This even though they got a ambition of zero deaths and fatal injuries from car accidents.

Tomorrow I will try to take some pictures of the ongoing building of new E 39 from Rendalen in Møre og Romsdal to Staurset in Sør-Trøndelag. Supposed to be finished october 2010. What's really anoying is that the stretches next to the new part also is outdatet. They are mostly 6 meters wide but won't be upgraded untill after 2015. So when they are finished this time they leave for 5 years before they return.









The new part had a really bad standard and most of it was under 5 meter wide. One part was as narrow as 3,3 meters. The traffic was only 750 AADT but that's becouse most people don't dare to drive there. It's also cheaper to drive via Dombås and Oppdal as there are two ferries and three toll roads on E 39 before and after the new part.










Trondheim - Kristiansund
E 39 - 192,5 km - 3:05 hours. (One ferry, three toll roads)
Via Surnadal - 209,4 km - 3:27 hours (One ferry, three toll roads)
Via Oppdal - 293,5 km - 4:24 hours (One toll road)

Trondheim - Molde
E 39 - 216,4 km - 3:24 hours (One ferry, three toll roads)
Via Surnadal - 233,3 km - 3:46 hours (One ferry, three toll roads)
Via Oppdal - 276,9 km - 4:08 hours (Nothing)

Trondheim - Ålesund
E 39 - 284,3 km - 4:57 hours (Two ferries, three toll roads)
Via Surnadal - 301,2 hours - 5:19 hours (Two ferries, three toll roads)
Via Dombås - 422,9 km - 6:05 hours (Nothing)

A truck driving from Ålesund to Trondheim would save 1671 kr or about 200 € by driving via Dombås instead of E 39.


----------



## Red-Lion

Does anyone know what type of profile and specs a road will get if it's built after H2 standards?


----------



## Ingenioren

I would certainly take the ferries from Møre to Trondheim if they take as shorter time as you say, those are relaxing time from the drive, and you can take something to eat and enjoy the views  Also, the Dombås road means crossing 2 high mountainpasses... But i agree the E39 is shockingly bad standard in many places as most West-Norway roads... Very exotic and cool as a tourist, but nightmare for those depending on it.

H2 means "Hovedveg i middels tett bebyggelse." :
http://www.vegvesen.no/s/bransjekon...H2/04_Hovedveg_middels_tett_bebyggelse_H2.htm
http://www.vegvesen.no/s/bransjekon...ddels_tett_bebyggelse_H2/04_Tverrprofilet.htm


----------



## IceCheese

Kjello0 said:


> The new part had a really bad standard and most of it was under 5 meter wide. One part was as narrow as 3,3 meters. *The traffic was only 750 AADT *but that's becouse most people don't dare to drive there. It's also cheaper to drive via Dombås and Oppdal as there are two ferries and three toll roads on E 39 before and after the new part.


And I guess that's reason enough for Statens Vegvesen and our friends in the financial/transportation ministries to keep neglecting it. Embarassing!hno:


----------



## Ingenioren

Ådt is often low one these roads, but they are very significant in connecting different parts of the country, especially for industry and commerce troughout the regions...


----------



## mike7743

hmmm, for one of the richest nation on earth I expected a much larger, complex and attractive highways.


----------



## Red-Lion

One of the richest in GDP per capita, yes, but road building is expensive in mountains and labor cost can easily be doubled that of USA. 

Don't get me wrong, we could afford extreme scale motorways, so I don't know why they aren't built. But it looks like our socialistic regime are finally realizing that we need better ways to save the environment and human lives.


----------



## AmiDelf

Well. USA is rich and is one of the most polluted countries in the world. Why does a rich country have to create highways? 

Norway is just a hilly country. The only reasonable thing to do here, is to extend the railway system and improve existing roads. Money can be spent on much different stuff. I don't really want 8 lane highways in Norway and I doubt that other Norwegians want that too.


----------



## Kjello0

IceCheese said:


> And I guess that's reason enough for Statens Vegvesen and our friends in the financial/transportation ministries to keep neglecting it. Embarassing!hno:


I didn't quite understand if you thought it was a bad thing that they use money on a new road or if you thought they should have done it earlier. 

The main reason they havn't done it earlier is becouse there has been relative low number of injuries despite the low standard. Actually only 6 fatal injuries and zero deaths between 1997 and 2004. But that's due to the low AADT. And the low AADT is becouse of the low standard. When the whole stretch from Orkanger to Halsa is finished the traffic will probably be atleast the double. But this won't happen until 2020 earliest.


----------



## mike7743

AmiDelf said:


> Well. USA is rich and is one of the most polluted countries in the world. Why does a rich country have to create highways?
> 
> Norway is just a hilly country. The only reasonable thing to do here, is to extend the railway system and improve existing roads. Money can be spent on much different stuff. I don't really want 8 lane highways in Norway and I doubt that other Norwegians want that too.


please stop being delusional and get off your high horse. it has nothing to do with USA. it's about providing the public with the best service. having great highways benefits everyone. you can hate the US all you want but pick your reasons. some of the "highways" in this thread are laughable. so small, narrow and crowded. cars need to move freely and that's not a US tradition. all the self righteousness aside let's try to apply common sense where it's needed.


----------



## mike7743

Red-Lion said:


> One of the richest in GDP per capita, yes, but road building is expensive in mountains and labor cost can easily be doubled that of USA.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, we could afford extreme scale motorways, so I don't know why they aren't built. But it looks like our socialistic regime are finally realizing that we need better ways to save the environment and human lives.


I agree. Norway is capable of doing great things. infrastructure is really important and it's time they realized that.


----------



## Red-Lion

edit: I realized that you didn't reply to me in the other post! My bad sorry.:bash: I do totally agree with your reply to the other guy here tho!

Original post:
Hi man, I "love" USA. 

It's only in the last 10-20 years Norway has become really rich, but we are not used to spend a lot of money on big stuff, so we save them and lose them on stock exchange.

But it's easier to build roads with permissive governments, flat terrain and cheaper labor.


----------



## Grauthue

mike7743 said:


> hmmm, for one of the richest nation on earth I expected a much larger, complex and attractive highways.


We expect it as well 

Unfortunatly we're far behind comparable nations as far as a proper highway network is concerned. Four lane roads on the main stretches between the biggest cities (or should I say towns) would suffice.

However, with a low population scattered over a big country I would rather prioritize a high speed rail network right now. But frankly we need both. Like right now...


----------



## Red-Lion

A good railway system would cost tens of times more than a good motorway system, and would still give a lot less flexibility. 

I would love to see more light rails, and generally more railways in Norway. But as you said, we need both! 

Should send our prisoners to good old schooling with forced labour building railway all the way to Kirkenes, and it should be the only way to get reduced the prison time!


----------



## Kjello0

AmiDelf said:


> Well. USA is rich and is one of the most polluted countries in the world. Why does a rich country have to create highways?
> 
> Norway is just a hilly country. The only reasonable thing to do here, is to extend the railway system and improve existing roads.


What? Extending the railway system is like throwing money in the toilet. North of Steinkjer railways is only good for freight transport. South of Steinkjer only minor extensions can be defended. A good highway network will benefit everyone and everything that demand transportation i Norway. A railway won't.
Just to give a example. Why should we have a railway, if we don't have roads to drive to the stations? It's possible to run a country by only using roads. It's not possible to run a country by only using railways. The flexibility of roads is so much higher than with railways.

Note that highways is not the same as motorways. The Norwegian word for Highways is Stamveier. Meaning roads between important destinations, such as cities. 
Pr 2004 the Norwegian Highway network looked like this.









The american word for motorways is freeways. Motortrafikkveier is also freeways as they got controlled-access and thereby free flow.
Norway needs a good highway network. And most of that network should be freeways. 

And when we are done building the highway network we could start building railways were it's needed.


----------



## Verso

AmiDelf said:


> Well. USA is rich and is one of the most polluted countries in the world. Why does a rich country have to create highways?
> 
> Norway is just a hilly country. The only reasonable thing to do here, is to extend the railway system and improve existing roads. Money can be spent on much different stuff. I don't really want 8 lane highways in Norway and I doubt that other Norwegians want that too.


I think 4-lane highways would suffice in Norway. :lol:


----------



## Grauthue

Red-Lion said:


> A good railway system would cost tens of times more than a good motorway system


Ehh....No. Should be around the same per kilometer as a four lane road.
And it would take you from Oslo to Bergen, Trondheim or Stavanger in half the time it would take you to drive on a proper motorway.


----------



## Red-Lion

Grauthue said:


> Ehh....No. Should be around the same per kilometer as a four lane road.
> And it would take you from Oslo to Bergen, Trondheim or Stavanger in half the time it would take you to drive on a proper motorway.


Well, I was referring to a railway system covering all of Norway. Compared to already existing roads.



Kjello0:
I think it's more correct to translate highways into "Norwegian national roads", basically the european routes and the "riksvei"s (national routes). But yes, highway does not mean motorway.


----------



## IceCheese

Ingenioren said:


> Ådt is often low one these roads, but they are very significant in connecting different parts of the country, especially for industry and commerce troughout the regions...





Kjello0 said:


> I didn't quite understand if you thought it was a bad thing that they use money on a new road or if you thought they should have done it earlier.
> 
> The main reason they havn't done it earlier is becouse there has been relative low number of injuries despite the low standard. Actually only 6 fatal injuries and zero deaths between 1997 and 2004. But that's due to the low AADT. And the low AADT is becouse of the low standard. When the whole stretch from Orkanger to Halsa is finished the traffic will probably be atleast the double. But this won't happen until 2020 earliest.


In my opinion, for "Stamveger" ÅDT shouldn't be something you look at. Every road in this country that is a part of Stamvegnettet should have 2 lanes or more, no questions asked. They should also be completely free to drive on, no toll booths or expensive ferries at all. That would be the only way we can support the scattered way of living and the industrial/economical network we have in this country.


----------



## Ingenioren

I think toll should be concentrated to cities or rail-corridors, basicly only where there are good alternatives - also tolls could be used to prevent unwanted road-use. My concern is with the narrow non-yellow stripe highways, and troubled mountain-passes aswell as good bypasses leading trough trafic outside of the cities primarily, then we could start working on solving issues in the cities without concern to this trafic. I also think that it's a shame that rail and buses is so expensive - here we can learn from US, one can say a lot about US public transport, but atleast it's dirt-cheap


----------



## IceCheese

Ingenioren said:


> My concern is with the narrow non-yellow stripe highways,


That's what I was saying. The roads that don't have two lanes...


----------



## Ingenioren

^ I sometimes agree with a small portion of what you say, you know 

When it comes to mountains making roads to expensive, that is just not right. buying of farmlands or peoples houses are more expensive.... Also the rock from the tunnels provides roadbuilders with good fundaments for the road elsewhere...


----------



## Kjello0

Grauthue said:


> Ehh....No. Should be around the same per kilometer as a four lane road.
> And it would take you from Oslo to Bergen, Trondheim or Stavanger in half the time it would take you to drive on a proper motorway.


If it cost around the same, why then not build motorways who benefit alot more people than these railways?


----------



## Majestic

Kjello0 said:


> Actually only 6 fatal injuries and zero deaths between 1997 and 2004.


Fatal injury = death :crazy:


----------



## IceCheese

^^I read that too,but I didn't wanna say anything.:nuts: I guess what he means is "serious injuries"...



Ingenioren said:


> ^ I sometimes agree with a small portion of what you say, you know
> 
> When it comes to mountains making roads to expensive, that is just not right. buying of farmlands or peoples houses are more expensive.... Also the rock from the tunnels provides roadbuilders with good fundaments for the road elsewhere...


I'm just much more precise than you are... I would say "at least 2 lanes" is a bit better expression than "the narrow non-yellow stripe highways".:bash:


----------



## Ingenioren

No motorway is needed for roads with low trafic  And no i don't think motorway has the same benefits as high-speed rail... The traveltime will still be high even if you build motorway...


----------



## IceCheese

^^I agree we don't need motorways all over the country. When we have Oslo-Trondheim, Oslo-Krisitansand-Stavanger-Bergen, and Ålesund-Trondheim-Steinkjer, it should be quite sufficient! The rest can have wide 2-lane roads with 90 km/h limits, maybe with some passing lanes in the worst climbing-parts..

But we need a HSR-network in Southern Norway in addition to this, yes. That's the most efficient travel-way. But as some have mentioned, it's not flexible enough to work alone.

The one I'm most excited about is Ålesund-Steinkjer. Imagine what a region that would be, of one could really start cutting the distances. So many cities, and so much economy (oil). It's weird is isn't more tied together now, but when plane is the only way to get to a place, the Oslo-region is suddenly the closest destination...

Ok, I'm dreaming... And yabbering...


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

Kjello0 said:


> Tomorrow I will try to take some pictures of the ongoing building of new E 39 from Rendalen in Møre og Romsdal to Staurset in Sør-Trøndelag.


Nice post. I thought that road was more or less continously closed these days due to the construction?


Kjello0 said:


> I didn't quite understand if you thought it was a bad thing that they use money on a new road or if you thought they should have done it earlier.
> 
> The main reason they havn't done it earlier is becouse there has been relative low number of injuries despite the low standard. Actually only 6 fatal injuries and zero deaths between 1997 and 2004. But that's due to the low AADT. And the low AADT is becouse of the low standard. When the whole stretch from Orkanger to Halsa is finished the traffic will probably be atleast the double. But this won't happen until 2020 earliest.


Another reason in this case is that this part of E39 is relatively new as a national thoroughfare. The main road to Kristiansund used to go via Surnadal (rv 65) and the main road to Molde used to go via Sunndal (not that it is any better). However, two new bridges in Krifast changed all that, and the road via Halsa all of a sudden became the shortest, and hence the route for the new E39.

To underpin your traffic claim:
AADT rv 65 (Surnadal road) on mountain pass between Meldal and Rindal: 1600
AADT rv 70 border Oppdal-Sunndal: 1500
AADT E136 border Oppland-Romsdal: 1650

(Not all of this traffic originates would transfer to E39, however, this is particularly true for E136, where most of the traffic comes from Oslo and not Trondheim)


IceCheese said:


> ^^I agree we don't need motorways all over the country. When we have Oslo-Trondheim, Oslo-Krisitansand-Stavanger-Bergen, and Ålesund-Trondheim-Steinkjer, it should be quite sufficient! The rest can have wide 2-lane roads with 90 km/h limits, maybe with some passing lanes in the worst climbing-parts..
> 
> But we need a HSR-network in Southern Norway in addition to this, yes. That's the most efficient travel-way. But as some have mentioned, it's not flexible enough to work alone.
> 
> The one I'm most excited about is Ålesund-Steinkjer. Imagine what a region that would be, of one could really start cutting the distances. So many cities, and so much economy (oil). It's weird is isn't more tied together now, but when plane is the only way to get to a place, the Oslo-region is suddenly the closest destination...
> 
> Ok, I'm dreaming... And yabbering...


Ålesund-Trondheim is in my vision (see link in signature), but in the third phase. Orkanger-Steinkjer is even in FrPs transport plan, and as far I remember also in the road authorities (very long term) plan.... However, connecting also Ålesund, Molde, and Kristiansund would be great (but expensive).


Ingenioren said:


> No motorway is needed for roads with low trafic  And no i don't think motorway has the same benefits as high-speed rail... The traveltime will still be high even if you build motorway...


In my view, HSR /railway and improved highways/motorways play complentary roles. HSR would almost certainly be a more expensive way of travel, and would in reality serve the central cities the best as you still need connectivity to your final destination unless it is close to the stations. This would be OK for much of the bussiness and commuter travelers, however. Trondheim-Oslo should be possible in about 4 hours with a proper motorway, and hence would be a alternative for budget travellers. Both are propably needed in order to reduce the very energy inefficient air travel. Whereas HSR is not neccessarily any better for the climate than motorways, railways is much better for freight. Hence, job number one for the the Norwegian railways should be to remove the bottlenecks in freight transport, and electrify the lines that are still diesel. However, politically, I think it is much easier to get a broad compromize on HSR+Motorways than just motorways.


Red-Lion said:


> Kjello0:
> I think it's more correct to translate highways into "Norwegian national roads", basically the european routes and the "riksvei"s (national routes). But yes, highway does not mean motorway.


In English also county and municipal roads can be highways. I.e., a small residiential street is not a highway, but main city roads and most public rural roads are highways.


----------



## Kjello0

54°26′S 3°24′E;37612878 said:


> Nice post. I thought that road was more or less continously closed these days due to the construction?


They only work Sunday evenings to Thursday evenings. So it's opened for local traffic during weekends. Even tough it's officially closed since it's really bad standard and won't be easy for heavy traffic to drive there. The pictures will have to wait. Couldn't find my camera.


----------



## Kjello0

54°26′S 3°24′E;37612878 said:


> Orkanger-Steinkjer is even in FrPs transport plan, and as far I remember also in the road authorities (very long term) plan....


You won't believe this. The stretch between Klett and Orkanger is 26,9 km, including 10,4 km in tunnels. Klett - Øysand 4,5 km is planed as 4 lane motorway. They also plan new 2 lane tunnels. This leaves 12 km which they plan as 3 lane roads. 

If they actually does it like this it will give
Start Orkanger
5,42 km 3 lane
3,65 km 4 lane
630 m 3 lane
2,71 km 4 lane
1,59 km 3 lane
278 m 4 lane
540 m 3 lane
722 m 4 lane
550 m 3 lane
1,73 km 4 lane
3,38 km 3 lane
5,7 km 4 lane
End Klett interchange


----------



## Ingenioren

I made a map of motorway development in Norway - sorry i only choose the area with the most going on, but i can just add that there has been some and will be more motorway building in other regions, but shorter stretches than this - I also choose to add all 4 lane or more roads that have some motorway qualities. 

2000:









2010:









2020 (NTP):


----------



## Ingenioren

And then the 3 other city regions:

Bergen:
2000:









2010:









2020:









Stavanger:
2000:









2010:









2020:









Trondheim:
2000:









2010:









2020:


----------



## Kjello0

Motorway from Melhus to Støren is supposed to be finished in 2016.


----------



## Ingenioren

^ Not motorway, only 2 lanes from Melhus and south... Don't even think it will be divided lanes....:bash:


----------



## Kjello0

No, it's going to be a narrow 4 lane motorway. Traffic is already 9700 on the stretch south of Melhus. However, Melhus - Støren wasn't a part of NTP. Guessing it will be in when the next NTP comes in four years. It won't cost 2,5 billion NOK if it's not Motorway.


----------



## Ingenioren

You're right, i missed that one - not really my region, just assumed it would be 2 lane because of the southern part of Melhus bypass is 2 lane ;D Good news! To bad it's not in NTP, atleast an upgrade of E6 south of Støren made it aswell as the last bit between Trondheim and Melhus


----------



## Red-Lion

We might see the motorway prolonged past Ålgård and perhaps even eiganestunnellen and rogfast connnected with a motorway. 

And wow, didn't know that ryfast was gonna be a 4-liner! Sweet!



In other news!
Car fuel can rise with 1 kr per litre. 
http://www.aftenbladet.no/lokalt/1037067/Regjeringen_aapner_for_drivstoffavgift.html
_Rogaland får lov til å innføre lokal drivstoffavgift. Literprisen på bensin og diesel kan fort bli en krone dyrere enn i dag. _


----------



## Kjello0

New motortrafikkveier have been given yellow signs since 2005 when they became motortrafikkveier and not Motorway class B. However, the blue motortrafikkvei mark next to the green E 18 mark means that the following E 18 stretch is signposted as a motortrafikkvei.


----------



## Red-Lion

Þróndeimr said:


> ^^ of course, but with todays technology, building a bridge with a 6-7km span require 600m tall towers! If we Norwegians made nicer bridges i would be very positive! P


I don't think it's feasible to put pillars on 500m depth, and with that high towers on top. I guess one could buy the Troll-platform in 50 years or whenever it's done operating. Allthough it is only designed to operate in about 300m deep sea with total hight of 472 meters. 

main span could possibly be "only" 5km, but that is still way to long i'm afraid :<





54°26′S 3°24′E;38077104 said:


> I would be a bit surprised if Rogfast actually materialize as the NTP predicts. Remember that the 6 last year of the plan is not committing at all, and my guess was unfortunately that the government just wanted some cheap Rogaland votes....


That would be horrible, I think Rogfast would be alot better than the "stupid" Ryfast project :S


----------



## Red-Lion

Ingenioren said:


> I love those Midtbyen intersections where there is an all-pedestrian green instead, maybe that could be a solution elsewhere aswell? (We don't have them in Oslo.)


I don't think this is a good solution, as it will totally stop the traffic in all directions, and there aren't that many pedestrians around. 

I think the "Elgseter street"/E6 city route needs to improve traffic flow and not decrease it. Alltho this particular intersection would probably not make the flow worse as it's closer to the cit centre the worst jams are.



Þróndeimr said:


> Gråkallen is 550m something, while those hills at Rørvik is some 450m. Btw, welcome back to the right place of living!
> 
> And by your reply its easy to see that a bridge is unthinkable (remember they think HSR is too expencive, that bridge would cost both HSR Oslo-Trondheim and Oslo-Bergen).


So, we can just move the whole "bymarka" into the fjord making an unprecedented landfill!



On the E134 subject, it will improve summer route from Stavanger to Oslo if the road between Seljord and Oslo became better.


----------



## Þróndeimr

Red-Lion said:


> I don't think it's feasible to put pillars on 500m depth, and with that high towers on top. I guess one could buy the Troll-platform in 50 years or whenever it's done operating. Allthough it is only designed to operate in about 300m deep sea with total hight of 472 meters.
> 
> main span could possibly be "only" 5km, but that is still way to long i'm afraid :<


True, btw i ment that the towers must be 500-600m above ground to suport a span between 5-7km (Strait of Messina Bridge towers will be 380m tall). Its even more impossible to build a smaller span with towers attached to the sea bottom, since its 500m deep, extremly steep and the ground is very poor.

The shortest distance between Flakk and Rørvik is 6.8km, looking at this maps we might get a span down to 6km. The distance from sea level and -500m is so short it almost goes strait down on both sides of the fjord. Putting huge bridge towers near the edge is way too dangerous, so you can't put the towers much out from the shoreline.


----------



## Þróndeimr

Red-Lion said:


> So, we can just move the whole "bymarka" into the fjord making an unprecedented landfill!


yeah, i actually think thats easier than building a bridge as it is now!


----------



## Red-Lion

What does people think of Kvivsvegen? The new E39 between Sogn og Fjordane and Møre og Romsdal?
http://www.vegvesen.no/Vegprosjekter/e39kvivsvegen









Photo from vegvesen.no

Some positive stuff about it:
1. Very good for the local people connecting making a bigger work/living region.
2. Potential of becoming a nice alternative for E39.
3. Ferry free E39 on that stretch. Removing 2 ferry stretches.
4. YIMBYism

Some negative stuff:
1. No other plans to improve RV60 which will be part of the new E39. This looks more curved and worse than current E39 in my eyes from looking on the map. But I have no local knowledge about this road.
2. People from Nordfjordseid will have to drive 30km longer to get to Volda and other places north of it. (However will not use more time due to ferry removal).


Trivia: A special rare toad species are living in the area, and can make the construction cost higher due to special precautions/handling of water run off.


----------



## Ingenioren

I'm all for putting a lot of money into E39, it's the E6 of the west-coast

I can see parts of Rv60 here: -It was voted the worst road in the country sometime back by a popular poll... 




It's definatly a typical no-priority vestlandsroad! So there needs to be done some improvements or else this will be a trap for truckers believing it's ok to drive...


----------



## Kjello0

I think it's too far east. If we want a ferry free highway along the west coast we need to cross Sognefjorden. And Sognefjorden will only be crossable almost all the way out on coast at the island Losna where the fjord is only 250 meters deep. Further in it's usually 1000 -1400 meters deep and even 700 - 1000 in the very end of the fjord. Also Storfjorden south of Ålesund will be hard to cross as it's 440 meters deep, but still possible. The alternative is a bridge with a span of 3,5 km. 

I want a new route for the whole stretch from Halsa at Nordmøre and to Kristiansand. However, it will cost alot as it will have alot of tunnels and bridges. Several suspension bridges, some over 1 km long.


----------



## Red-Lion

E6 of the west coast is really air traffic, E39 more used for local traffic, and inter-county on limited stretches, and for the goods transtransport. It can change, let's hope! I guess you can cross sognefjorden with a span of 3-4km somewhere in the inner parts.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

Þróndeimr said:


> yeah, i actually think thats easier than building a bridge as it is now!


Does anyone except Svein Otto Nilsen, former loose cannon of the progress party (and as all other expelled members now member of "Demomkratene) believe in a bridge?


Kjello0 said:


> I think it's too far east. If we want a ferry free highway along the west coast we need to cross Sognefjorden. And Sognefjorden will only be crossable almost all the way out on coast at the island Losna where the fjord is only 250 meters deep. Further in it's usually 1000 -1400 meters deep and even 700 - 1000 in the very end of the fjord. Also Storfjorden south of Ålesund will be hard to cross as it's 440 meters deep, but still possible. The alternative is a bridge with a span of 3,5 km.
> 
> I want a new route for the whole stretch from Halsa at Nordmøre and to Kristiansand. However, it will cost alot as it will have alot of tunnels and bridges. Several suspension bridges, some over 1 km long.


What would be the most realistic alternative for a ferry-free Trondheim-Kristiansund, do you think, Halsafjorden or Talgsjøen tunnel?? Personally I believe Halsafjorden, but for E39 an alternative could also be going further inland via a new tunnel between Surnadal and Sunndal , and hence skip Kristiansund. For the rest of the route to Stavanger/Kristiandsand, see below.


Red-Lion said:


> E6 of the west coast is really air traffic, E39 more used for local traffic, and inter-county on limited stretches, and for the goods transtransport. It can change, let's hope! I guess you can cross sognefjorden with a span of 3-4km somewhere in the inner parts.


Before a Sognefjord crossing, I would prioritize (from north to south)

Rombakfjorden crossing
Tysfjord crossing (although almost in the same class as Sognefjorden, it is probably easier to cross)
Trondheimsfjord crossing (Trondheim-Frosta-Fosen 
Agdenes-Brekstad-Rissa (another Trondheim fjord crossing)
Halsafjord crossing
Romsdalsfjord crossing
Storfjord crossing (this one is probably quite difficult, tube tunnel has been suggested)
Nordfjord crossing
Another Hardangerfjord crossing (from Jondal)
Fusa-crossing
Ryfast
Rogfast
Moss-Horten
New Mjøsa-bridge
Motorway Oslo-Steinkjer-Ålesund-Oslo, Oslo-Kristiansand-Stavanger-Bergen-Oslo and a few other places:









Did I forget something?

Perhaps when the other fjord crossings of E39 is fixed, and the traffic on E39 picks up, we can start talking about a Sognefjord crossing. Until then, the traffic is way too low, and the expense way too high.


----------



## Kjello0

54°26′S 3°24′E;38182928 said:


> What would be the most realistic alternative for a ferry-free Trondheim-Kristiansund, do you think, Halsafjorden or Talgsjøen tunnel?? Personally I believe Halsafjorden, but for E39 an alternative could also be going further inland via a new tunnel between Surnadal and Sunndal , and hence skip Kristiansund. For the rest of the route to Stavanger/Kristiandsand, see below.


With the target a ferry free connection between Trondheim and Kristiansund/Molde the Halsafjord project is the only solution. The Talgsjø project compared to the Halsafjord project will only benefit those who live at the western parts of Tustna. As you can see from the picture below they suggest both a tunnel from Halsa to Tustna, and a tunnel from Tingvold to Frei. Giving most people that live in Aure a better connection to both Trondheim, Molde and Kristiansund. While people living at the western part of Tustna would prefer the Talgsjø project as that's the better connection for them to Kristiansund and Molde. 

Talgsjø project will close one ferry. Halsafjord project will close three ferries.


----------



## Red-Lion

E39 should be designed so it becomes a viable transport for many parties from Trondheim to Bergen/Stavanger, it should not take heavy detours to connect less than 20k people onto the road.


----------



## IceCheese

^^The problem is that the government always favour that if it can get them some cheap votes...


----------



## Kjello0

Personally I would like to see this stamvei network in the long therm.
Motorways in black.
Other stamveier in white. Most of them as motortrafikkveier.
All stretches are free of ferries.









The reason I have motorway both up Østerdalen and over Dovre is simple. I want the future motorway between Trondheim and Oslo to go up Østerdalen which is shortest and is lower than Dovre. But even with this motorway we still need a motorway up Gudbrandsdalen to Dombås, and a motorway from the Rv 3 exit at Ulsberg to Oppdal. And with those stretches in place it's just stupid not to upgrade the last 80 km between Oppdal and Dombås to motorway standard.

In total this network of motorways will be about 3700 km. Which we per metercost could get for 185 billion NOK. And then it's not taken into account that we already have many of those stretches finished already. Either already signposted as motorways or stretches that only need minor changes to be signposted as motorway. As an example the new E 6 north of Melhus is just waiting the stretches south of Trondheim and south of Melhus to be finished before it gets classified as motorway. In adition we need some smaller stretches further north like Rv 80 between Fauske and Bodø.


----------



## Red-Lion

i like the idea, but i think there are some "stamveger" missing from your and the goverments plans, aswell as questionable motorways, but in general it's a good motorway system. I'm unsure if there is a need of motorway to gol/hol/geilo etc..

I also think the motorway should be expanded somewhat north of Bergen.


----------



## Kjello0

Red-Lion said:


> i like the idea, but i think there are some "stamveger" missing from your and the goverments plans, aswell as questionable motorways, but in general it's a good motorway system. I'm unsure if there is a need of motorway to gol/hol/geilo etc..
> 
> I also think the motorway should be expanded somewhat north of Bergen.


Which stretches are missing? 

On Rv 7 from Hønefoss to Gol the traffic is mostly over 4000 AADT already and will demand a motorway in the future. From Gol to Geilo the traffic on some stretches are over 4000 AADT, but with most of the route between 2000 and 4000 AADT. So a motorway from Gol to Geilo may not be needed. But it would be nice to connect the Hallingdal cities together as one region.

When it comes to motorway north of Bergen I'm pretty unsure with the need of that. Traffic going to and from Bergen will mostly use the current E 39. So the traffic going on the new road will only be traffic that bypasses Bergen. And I don't think that will be enough to defend a motorway.


----------



## Majestic

4000 AADT is nothing. Doesn't justify any dual carriageway, let alone a motorway.


----------



## Kjello0

Over time (40-60 years) it will. And new roads in the stamvei network should be planed with atleast 40 years. Today they plan with 20 years. Sweden plans their new motorways with 70 years. It will be damn expensive if we are going to upgrade every road each 20 year. And we will never manage to get a good road network this way either.
And when I say 4000 it's between 4000 and 8000. So it may be all the way up to 8000 AADT already.
They got one color for traffic below 500, 
one for 500 - 1000, 
one for 1000 - 2000,
one for 2000 - 4000, 
one for 4000 - 8000, 
one for 8000 - 16000, 
one for 16000 - 32000, 
one for 32000 - 50000, 
and one for 50000+.


----------



## Red-Lion

Kjello0 said:


> Which stretches are missing?
> 
> On Rv 7 from Hønefoss to Gol the traffic is mostly over 4000 AADT already and will demand a motorway in the future. From Gol to Geilo the traffic on some stretches are over 4000 AADT, but with most of the route between 2000 and 4000 AADT. So a motorway from Gol to Geilo may not be needed. But it would be nice to connect the Hallingdal cities together as one region.
> 
> When it comes to motorway north of Bergen I'm pretty unsure with the need of that. Traffic going to and from Bergen will mostly use the current E 39. So the traffic going on the new road will only be traffic that bypasses Bergen. And I don't think that will be enough to defend a motorway.



Well RV9 is already a stamveg i guess. 
I also think RV44 Sandnes-Egersund should be a stamveg. 
RV51 Fagernes-Otta could also be a stamveg, but perhaps not needed in the future with new E39 and other roads..?
I also think there should be a stamveg crossing to Sweden in the Trysil area. RV25??
I also think some of the Riksveger around Oslo should be stamveger. Stamveger generally gets a good standard, and I think inter-municipal roads with great traffic numbers needs to be good funded, and a statewide will to develop these roads. Less driven, but yet important regional roads should also be "stamveger". I don't see the point in having a low number of important roads. Reducing the number of "riksveger" and the introduction of the term "stamveger" is just government ways to remove guilt and responsibilities. 

The bypass road (RV44) of Kleppekrossen in Rogaland was recommended to be built 4-line road, they built a 2-line road. Bryne soons needs a new bypass road. I think it's sad that they didn't plan a new dual carriage way all the way from Sandnes to past Bryne when they first built the Sandnes/Ganddal bypass.


----------



## Red-Lion

http://e24.no/makro-og-politikk/article3122607.ece



> Fra nyttår overtar norske fylker 17.000 kilometer vei fra staten. Men av ekstramidlene på én milliard kroner går over halvparten til administrasjon og til Statens vegvesen.
> 
> Neste år får Statens vegvesen 537 millioner kroner for å administrere veier som fylkene skal overta. Nå reagerer flere fylkesordførere på det de mener er urimelig høye administrasjonsutgifter hos vegvesenet, skriver Nationen.
> 
> 5,4 mrd. til administrasjon
> 
> På ti år regner Tore O. Sandvik (Ap) i Sør-Trøndelag og Roger Ryberg (Ap) i Buskerud med at Vegvesenet vil bruke 5,4 milliarder kroner til administrasjon. Pengene burde i langt større grad vært brukt til å bygge og drifte veier, mener de to.
> 
> – Jeg er ikke sikker på at Vegvesenet bruker så mye på administrasjon i dag. Mesteparten av administrasjonskostnadene er prosjektfinansiert i dag, sier Sandvik.
> 
> Han får støtte fra Roger Ryberg i Buskerud.
> 
> – Jeg synes dette er altfor mye, sier Ryberg.
> 
> - Mindre enn de trenger
> 
> Statssekretær Geir Pollestad (Sp) i Samferdselsdepartementet sier at Statens vegvesen har fått mindre enn det de mente de trengte.
> 
> – De mente den totale summen var 1,1 milliard kroner, og vi har justert denne ned til 1 milliard, sier han.
> 
> Norges Automobil-Forbund (NAF) er enig i at Statens vegvesen må dokumentere utgiftene til administrasjon.


So the counties gets less than half a billion NOK like 60-70ish million euros to administrate 17 000 000 meters of road. This is less than half of what was promised since over half is going to pay salaries for old employees which currently "don't have a job and can't be fired". They could of course be hired county-wide but hi, let's face it, norwegian government is ineffective.


----------



## Olekristian

*4 felt opp til Mjøsbrua*



Ingenioren said:


> I made a map of motorway development in Norway - sorry i only choose the area with the most going on, but i can just add that there has been some and will be more motorway building in other regions, but shorter stretches than this - I also choose to add all 4 lane or more roads that have some motorway qualities.
> 
> 2000:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2010:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2020 (NTP):


In 2020, there will be a highway up to Mjøsbrua Near Moelv(today Motortrafikkvei), about 35 km north of Hamar, so your map for 2020 is not entirely correct. I know since I live in Hamar. 435000000 NOK is already allocated for this purpose so the works can start ca 2014.

There is however plans to build the highway all the way up to Øyer, but that vil be after 2020.


----------



## Red-Lion

One of the best ideas i have seen:
http://www.sognavis.no/lokale_nyhende/article4398444.ece

They want to allow power companies to remove some of the mountain close to the road, since they need rocks to improve the dams.

They will need 6000 truck loads of rock, and will improve the safety on 500 meters of the road.

And it will not cost the municipality or road authorities anything, as local companies finance the planning, and Statkraft pays for the work.


----------



## Olekristian

A little update: Today's Hamar Arbeiderblad (18/6-2009) states that the E6 between Kolomoen and Moelv can be finished as early as 2015.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

Kjello0 said:


> Personally I would like to see this stamvei network in the long therm.
> Motorways in black.
> Other stamveier in white. Most of them as motortrafikkveier.
> All stretches are free of ferries.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The reason I have motorway both up Østerdalen and over Dovre is simple. I want the future motorway between Trondheim and Oslo to go up Østerdalen which is shortest and is lower than Dovre. But even with this motorway we still need a motorway up Gudbrandsdalen to Dombås, and a motorway from the Rv 3 exit at Ulsberg to Oppdal. And with those stretches in place it's just stupid not to upgrade the last 80 km between Oppdal and Dombås to motorway standard.
> 
> In total this network of motorways will be about 3700 km. Which we per metercost could get for 185 billion NOK. And then it's not taken into account that we already have many of those stretches finished already. Either already signposted as motorways or stretches that only need minor changes to be signposted as motorway. As an example the new E 6 north of Melhus is just waiting the stretches south of Trondheim and south of Melhus to be finished before it gets classified as motorway. In adition we need some smaller stretches further north like Rv 80 between Fauske and Bodø.


Good to see that there are some people out there that are even more amitious (and optimistic?) than me.

A few comments:

I very much agree that the main Oslo-Trondheim road should (and in any case will) continue to be along Rv3. With some relatively inexpensive moves this road can even be shorter and hence more favorable than it is today.
Regarding E6 Gudbrandsdalen/Dovre: Motorway is certainly needed up to somewhere north of Lillehammer, perhaps up to Otta or even Dombås. However, I do not see the need for a motorway across Dovre or through Oppdal. In fact, I would probably oppose it unless a rather long tunnel is bored. Would it not be more natural to direct the motorway roughly along the E136 of today so that it connect to E39 somewhere south of the Romsdalsfjord? However, both along Gudbrandsdalen, Romsdalen a motorway would be very dominating as these valleys are rather narrow as well as beautiful, so some of these projects are doomed to be very controversial. The same goes for a motorway along the Hallingdalen, probably.
 It looks like you have bypassed Storfjorden with your chosen road to Volda/Ørsta. This may very well be the only solution here.
 The Oslo-Stavanger road looks very ambitious, I look forward to details here! If Haukeli should not be used for Stavanger, perhaps a motorway Geilo-Bergen should be considered instead of Haukeli for Bergen as well. It would at least avoid another Hardangerfjord crossing, but I have no clue where such a motorway should go, other than it will probably involve quite a few tunnels! (Finse?)
 I agree that a motorway is probably not needed the whole way from Volda to Bergen, as this is a rather sparsely populated area, and the traffic from Sunnmøre towards the continent will probably never go via Stavanger/Kristiansand to the continent. However, despite my somewhat negative comment earlier I infact support a "Autostrasse"/"Motortrafikkveg" along the coast in the long run.
 You forgot to put in a decent Trondheim-Bergen road!
 Northern Norway, any ideas?
 Costs: I landed, in a very unscientific way and with a less ambitious network on a sum of 153-230 billion for 2 770 km of new motorway. In any case, a rather small sum for an investment for the eternity.



Kjello0 said:


> Over time (40-60 years) it will. And new roads in the stamvei network should be planed with atleast 40 years. Today they plan with 20 years. Sweden plans their new motorways with 70 years. It will be damn expensive if we are going to upgrade every road each 20 year. And we will never manage to get a good road network this way either.
> And when I say 4000 it's between 4000 and 8000. So it may be all the way up to 8000 AADT already.
> They got one color for traffic below 500,
> one for 500 - 1000,
> one for 1000 - 2000,
> one for 2000 - 4000,
> one for 4000 - 8000,
> one for 8000 - 16000,
> one for 16000 - 32000,
> one for 32000 - 50000,
> and one for 50000+.


More detailed numbers can be found by zooming in on NVDB, however, I am not sure how updated the numbers are.


Olekristian said:


> In 2020, there will be a highway up to Mjøsbrua Near Moelv(today Motortrafikkvei), about 35 km north of Hamar, so your map for 2020 is not entirely correct. I know since I live in Hamar. 435000000 NOK is already allocated for this purpose so the works can start ca 2014.
> 
> There is however plans to build the highway all the way up to Øyer, but that vil be after 2020.





Olekristian said:


> A little update: Today's Hamar Arbeiderblad (18/6-2009) states that the E6 between Kolomoen and Moelv can be finished as early as 2015.


I was temped to say that you should never trust the transport plan for the latter 6 year period, remember that the plan is put forward in an election year and that historically many projects have been in the "next" time period for decades... However, in this case, I rembered that not even a word is mentioned in the national traffic plan just passed by the parliament about the E6 between Kolomoen and Øyer, so where does your 435 MNOK come from? Don' always trust your local paper, in particular if it is called "Arbeiderblad" just before an election (but it may of course be that I have missed something.)

Edit: I actually found a few words regarding Kolomoen-Lillehammer in the transport plan after some search:


> I siste seksårsperiode legges det til grunn fullføring av prosjektene E6 Minnesund – Skaberud, Ringebu – Otta og Jaktøya – Tonstad. I tillegg er det aktuelt å prioritere statlige midler til følgende større prosjekter:
> --
> 
> Oppstart på videre utbygging av E6 på strekningen Kolomoen – Lillehammer i Hedmark og Oppland. Strekningen er ulykkesbelastet, og trafikken er stor, spesielt mellom Hamar og Brumunddal. Prioriteringen er betinget av at det blir tilslutning til et opplegg for delvis bompengefinansiering av utbyggingen".


I.e., they say they have an "intention" to start one something from 2015 onwards, dependent on tolls...

According to the project page of the vegvesenet, there are objections to the plans around Hamar, so I would not be to optimistic. Remember that they are not even yet sure that the motorway along Mjøsa (Minnesund-Skaberud) will be finnished by 2014, after years of delays to due to protests.


----------



## Ingenioren

New part of E18 from Larvik to Sandefjord opens this monday, see pictures and videos:
http://www.op.no/e18/article4408595.ece


----------



## Red-Lion

I heard rumours you could use bicycle on it on sunday  would be fun, but i'm unfortunately not in the area!

the traffic data site was cool, and it proves my point that RV44 from sandnes past Bryne should be considered being built a four-line road.


----------



## Kjello0

54°26′S 3°24′E;38447664 said:


> Good to see that there are some people out there that are even more amitious (and optimistic?) than me.
> 
> A few comments:
> 
> I very much agree that the main Oslo-Trondheim road should (and in any case will) continue to be along Rv3. With some relatively inexpensive moves this road can even be shorter and hence more favorable than it is today.
> Regarding E6 Gudbrandsdalen/Dovre: Motorway is certainly needed up to somewhere north of Lillehammer, perhaps up to Otta or even Dombås. However, I do not see the need for a motorway across Dovre or through Oppdal. In fact, I would probably oppose it unless a rather long tunnel is bored. Would it not be more natural to direct the motorway roughly along the E136 of today so that it connect to E39 somewhere south of the Romsdalsfjord? However, both along Gudbrandsdalen, Romsdalen a motorway would be very dominating as these valleys are rather narrow as well as beautiful, so some of these projects are doomed to be very controversial. The same goes for a motorway along the Hallingdalen, probably.
> It looks like you have bypassed Storfjorden with your chosen road to Volda/Ørsta. This may very well be the only solution here.
> The Oslo-Stavanger road looks very ambitious, I look forward to details here! If Haukeli should not be used for Stavanger, perhaps a motorway Geilo-Bergen should be considered instead of Haukeli for Bergen as well. It would at least avoid another Hardangerfjord crossing, but I have no clue where such a motorway should go, other than it will probably involve quite a few tunnels! (Finse?)
> I agree that a motorway is probably not needed the whole way from Volda to Bergen, as this is a rather sparsely populated area, and the traffic from Sunnmøre towards the continent will probably never go via Stavanger/Kristiansand to the continent. However, despite my somewhat negative comment earlier I infact support a "Autostrasse"/"Motortrafikkveg" along the coast in the long run.
> You forgot to put in a decent Trondheim-Bergen road!
> Northern Norway, any ideas?
> Costs: I landed, in a very unscientific way and with a less ambitious network on a sum of 153-230 billion for 2 770 km of new motorway. In any case, a rather small sum for an investment for the eternity.
> 
> More detailed numbers can be found by zooming in on NVDB, however, I am not sure how updated the numbers are.


First of all, I don't believe a bit that we ever will see a such network in Norway. Unless I become dictator of course. 


 - 
 A motorway is needed all the way to Dombås. Especially since the Summer Average Daily Traffic (SADT) is already 8000 at Dombås south and 10 000 at Otta south. A motorway the last 25 km from Ulsberg (Rv 3 exit) to Oppdal is also needed. And I've never said that a motorway over Dovrefjell will be needed in its proper sense. I've just said it's stupid not to upgrade the last 80 km from Oppdal to Dombås. I just hate gaps. I actually hate gaps so much that I rather see the future motorway from Trondheim to Oslo go over Dovre and no motorway up Østerdalen than a motorway up Østerdalen and a gap between Dombås and Oppdal. I don't see the need for a tunnel at Dovrefjell. Compared to other passes in southern Norway Dovrefjell is rarely closed. And some shorter tunnels at the most risky places will be more than enough. I've considered a motorway from Dombås along the E 136 to Vestnes. But I don't think it may be defended to build a motorway all the way. We must also remember that some of the traffic at E 136 is actually traffic that would use E 39 if that road was good and cheaper.
Storfjorden is crossed between Sula and Hareid/Ulsteinvik and use the Eiksund tunnel to reach Ørsta and Volda. From Ulsteinvik the future E 39 should mostly follow the current Rv 61 before it follow a completly new route to east of Bergen.
It is very ambitious. It actually follows a very good route which mostly is under 900 meters. But a shorter stretch goes up to just above 1000 meters. The same as Dovrefjell. Probably the most ambitious part of this route is a 2 km long bridge 300 meters above Dalen valley in Tokke municipality Telemark. The bridge can be made only 1,6 km long, but would then go almost 400 meters above the valley and will demand some other bridges aswell. It would however be one amazing peice of engineering and a great landmark. In my opinion we need another Hardangerfjord crossing even if a motorway won't go there. Even with the planed Hardangerfjord bridge the distance from Odda to Bergen will be 200 km. A second Hardangerfjord crossing would make it under 100 km. And as you say, where should a motorway from Bergen to Geilo go? Finse I don't see as a option as the altitude is over 1200 meters there. And a tunnel under the whole thing would be about 60 km long. Then it's in my eyes better to use Haukeli which also connects the Haugesund region to eastern Norway.
 - 
The new E 39 is of course the main route between Trondheim and Bergen and will be more than good enough. A better route than this E 39 would have to go over Dovrefjell and demand tunnels over 40 km long.
Not plans that are so fun as in southern Norway. The closest is probably a new E 6/E 8 from Målselv to Tromsø. But I havn't agreed with myself yet. I've mainly focused on southern Norway.
Sintef states that narrow motorways costs 25 000 NOK pr meter to build and normal motorways 35 000 NOK pr meter excluding buying properties. I've used 50 000 NOK becouse there will be alot of bridges and tunnels. When it comes to financing it I think 40% should be paid by the goverment using oil money. 30% should be paid by the users by fuel taxes (which we actually already pay) and some toll roads. And the last 30% should be paid by the private sector.

That's where I found the numbers from. Only some points decided be Vegvesenet shows monthly and exact stats. Those are found in seperate PDF's for each county.

Another part of my ambition is to have two links (main and reserve) if the main one has to go over mountain passes. That's why we have both Østerdalen and Dovrefjell for Trondheim - Oslo even tough Østerdalen never gets closed. Atleast as far as I can remember. That's why we have both E 136 and Rv 15 over Strynfjellet for Ålesund - Oslo even though Strynfjellet gets alot more closed than E 136. And that's why we should have both the new Stavanger - Oslo link and a link along the current E 134 over Haukeli.


----------



## Red-Lion

35 000 is that for upgrading pre-existing 2-line to 4-line road on flat ground?


----------



## Kjello0

No, it's for building new roads. But on flat ground i guess, it doesn't say.

It does also say the cost of upgrading from different 2 lane roads to narrow motorway.

6,5 m -> 20 m = 20 000 pr meter
7,5 m -> 20 m = 19 500 pr meter
10 m -> 20 m = 18 400 pr meter

It does also explane why AADT is so important when new roads is given their standard. It seems like the target is the lowest costs in total. User costs and maintenance costs. They've used AADT 1000 to give an example. 

AADT 1000

Road width 6,5 meter
User costs 13 939 kr
Maintenance costs 7 397 kr
Total costs 21 336 kr

Road width 7,5 meter
User costs 13 652 kr
Maintenance costs 7 950 kr
Total costs 21 602 kr

Road width 8,5 meter
User costs 13 495 kr
Maintenance costs 8 704 kr
Total costs 22 100 kr

Road width 10 meter
User costs 13 096 kr
Maintenance costs 9 806 kr
Total costs 22 902 kr

So even though the user costs goes down with 843 from 13 939 to 13 096 the maintenance costs goes up with 2 409 from 7 397 to 9 806. Making the total cost 1 566 higher with a 10 wide road compared to a 6,5 meter one at AADT 1000. That's why we wont see a motorway network like this. 

For AADT 3000 the optimal standard is 8,5 meters.
For AADT 8000 the optimal standard is 10 meters.
And for AADT 15 000 the optimal standard is 20 meters.


----------



## IceCheese

Kjello0 said:


> First of all, I don't believe a bit that we ever will see a such network in Norway. Unless I become dictator of course.


You have my vote. Personally I would like to start a party called "Fornuftspartiet" where every political decision was based on common sense, instead of pleasing some few voters here and there in a desperate attempt to stay in power, while neglecting the cases that really matters. My party would also prohibit any processing of any kind in Stortinget last 6 months before elections, to ensure that also the other parties are "fornuftige".


----------



## Red-Lion

Kjello0 said:


> No, it's for building new roads. But on flat ground i guess, it doesn't say.
> 
> It does also say the cost of upgrading from different 2 lane roads to narrow motorway.
> 
> 6,5 m -> 20 m = 20 000 pr meter
> 7,5 m -> 20 m = 19 500 pr meter
> 10 m -> 20 m = 18 400 pr meter
> 
> It does also explane why AADT is so important when new roads is given their standard. It seems like the target is the lowest costs in total. User costs and maintenance costs. They've used AADT 1000 to give an example.
> 
> AADT 1000
> 
> Road width 6,5 meter
> User costs 13 939 kr
> Maintenance costs 7 397 kr
> Total costs 21 336 kr
> 
> Road width 7,5 meter
> User costs 13 652 kr
> Maintenance costs 7 950 kr
> Total costs 21 602 kr
> 
> Road width 8,5 meter
> User costs 13 495 kr
> Maintenance costs 8 704 kr
> Total costs 22 100 kr
> 
> Road width 10 meter
> User costs 13 096 kr
> Maintenance costs 9 806 kr
> Total costs 22 902 kr
> 
> So even though the user costs goes down with 843 from 13 939 to 13 096 the maintenance costs goes up with 2 409 from 7 397 to 9 806. Making the total cost 1 566 higher with a 10 wide road compared to a 6,5 meter one at AADT 1000. That's why we wont see a motorway network like this.
> 
> For AADT 3000 the optimal standard is 8,5 meters.
> For AADT 8000 the optimal standard is 10 meters.
> And for AADT 15 000 the optimal standard is 20 meters.


That doesn't take into account safety!


----------



## Red-Lion

IceCheese said:


> You have my vote. Personally I would like to start a party called "Fornuftspartiet" where every political decision was based on common sense, instead of pleasing some few voters here and there in a desperate attempt to stay in power, while neglecting the cases that really matters. My party would also prohibit any processing of any kind in Stortinget last 6 months before elections, to ensure that also the other parties are "fornuftige".


I guess It's okay for me to join in on the political debate here, when I'm gonna trash talk all parties! You definitly see the election coming up. Parties are lying, denying responsibilities, promising, arguing, whining... But elections are fun, atleast in Norway. Makes my sad life a little bit more interesting for a few months! 

I would vote for "common sense"-party, but since there are none, i'm gonna vote FrP. Yes they got a bunch of tards in their party, and a bunch of great people. But their politic is often based on objective view, and using money where it's benefits the most etc. I don't like the left parties, since they argue for worse roads just to make people use the car less, instead it creates traffic jams and more pollution. They wanna spend money on strange things, without giving real argumentation for it, and they don't wanna build up the income potential of norwegian business.

Maybe I should vote for the christian party in Norway, they believe that God told them to delay oil drilling in the North for 5 years. 

What we need in norway is more common sense, and I think this can be more easily done if there were more direct elections of persons in power. Now with our semi-democracy we can only elect parties, not people. 

Also there should be IQ testing of politicians and publications of the numbers!


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

Kjello0 said:


> First of all, I don't believe a bit that we ever will see a such network in Norway. Unless I become dictator of course.


Give me the army and you will have my wholehearted support!


Kjello0 said:


> A motorway is needed all the way to Dombås. Especially since the Summer Average Daily Traffic (SADT) is already 8000 at Dombås south and 10 000 at Otta south. A motorway the last 25 km from Ulsberg (Rv 3 exit) to Oppdal is also needed. And I've never said that a motorway over Dovrefjell will be needed in its proper sense. I've just said it's stupid not to upgrade the last 80 km from Oppdal to Dombås. I just hate gaps. I actually hate gaps so much that I rather see the future motorway from Trondheim to Oslo go over Dovre and no motorway up Østerdalen than a motorway up Østerdalen and a gap between Dombås and Oppdal. I don't see the need for a tunnel at Dovrefjell. Compared to other passes in southern Norway Dovrefjell is rarely closed. And some shorter tunnels at the most risky places will be more than enough. I've considered a motorway from Dombås along the E 136 to Vestnes. But I don't think it may be defended to build a motorway all the way. We must also remember that some of the traffic at E 136 is actually traffic that would use E 39 if that road was good and cheaper.
> 
> Another part of my ambition is to have two links (main and reserve) if the main one has to go over mountain passes. That's why we have both Østerdalen and Dovrefjell for Trondheim - Oslo even tough Østerdalen never gets closed. Atleast as far as I can remember. That's why we have both E 136 and Rv 15 over Strynfjellet for Ålesund - Oslo even though Strynfjellet gets alot more closed than E 136. And that's why we should have both the new Stavanger - Oslo link and a link along the current E 134 over Haukeli.


The reason I am against motorway across Dovre and through Oppdal is in fact more of an environmental argument. I simply do not think benefit is worth the the environmental cost (for the fauna, view, and the added "climate" cost of climbing the hill). Also, with a motorway Kolomoen-Ulsberg and upgrad Ulsberg-Oppdal, Østerdalen would probably be a good choise also for traffic Oslo-Nordmøre/Oppdal. 

RV3 Kolomoen-Ulsberg does not really have a mountain pass, and would be even less so with a short tunnel. The only time it is closed are due to traffic accidents, and before you manage to reroute to Dovre the road will be cleared again. Hence, IMO it is no need for an two links Trondheim-Oslo.

(The average AADT is btw below 4000 on most of Otta-Dombås, and below 8000 (downto below 5000) on Hafjell-Otta according to the vegvesen service I linked above. However, as you pointed out, traffic on most roads are higher in summer, and E6 seems to have a high affinity for RVs....)


Kjello0 said:


> Storfjorden is crossed between Sula and Hareid/Ulsteinvik and use the Eiksund tunnel to reach Ørsta and Volda. From Ulsteinvik the future E 39 should mostly follow the current Rv 61 before it follow a completly new route to east of Bergen.


Slightly off topic: The fjord between Sula and Hareid is called Sulfjorden. Storfjorden is between Sula and the mainland, where the current ferry on E39, Solevågen-Festøy. I think Storfjorden is quite deep, but have no clue regarding Sulfjorden.

BTW: I notice now that your new E39 north of Kristiansund crosses Talgsjøen?


Kjello0 said:


> It is very ambitious. It actually follows a very good route which mostly is under 900 meters. But a shorter stretch goes up to just above 1000 meters. The same as Dovrefjell. Probably the most ambitious part of this route is a 2 km long bridge 300 meters above Dalen valley in Tokke municipality Telemark. The bridge can be made only 1,6 km long, but would then go almost 400 meters above the valley and will demand some other bridges aswell. It would however be one amazing peice of engineering and a great landmark.


Not all people would regard such a bridge in this way...I just remember the slightly more southern route (across Suleskard) as extremely hilly, but the route you drew is probably better, at least (?) if Ryfast is built.



Kjello0 said:


> In my opinion we need another Hardangerfjord crossing even if a motorway won't go there. Even with the planed Hardangerfjord bridge the distance from Odda to Bergen will be 200 km. A second Hardangerfjord crossing would make it under 100 km. And as you say, where should a motorway from Bergen to Geilo go? Finse I don't see as a option as the altitude is over 1200 meters there. And a tunnel under the whole thing would be about 60 km long. Then it's in my eyes better to use Haukeli which also connects the Haugesund region to eastern Norway.


Agreed.



Kjello0 said:


> The new E 39 is of course the main route between Trondheim and Bergen and will be more than good enough. A better route than this E 39 would have to go over Dovrefjell and demand tunnels over 40 km long.


E39 is too long, we want a tunnel :lol:



Kjello0 said:


> Sintef states that narrow motorways costs 25 000 NOK pr meter to build and normal motorways 35 000 NOK pr meter excluding buying properties. I've used 50 000 NOK becouse there will be alot of bridges and tunnels. When it comes to financing it I think 40% should be paid by the goverment using oil money. 30% should be paid by the users by fuel taxes (which we actually already pay) and some toll roads. And the last 30% should be paid by the private sector.





Kjello0 said:


> No, it's for building new roads. But on flat ground i guess, it doesn't say.
> 
> It does also say the cost of upgrading from different 2 lane roads to narrow motorway.
> 
> 6,5 m -> 20 m = 20 000 pr meter
> 7,5 m -> 20 m = 19 500 pr meter
> 10 m -> 20 m = 18 400 pr meter
> 
> It does also explane why AADT is so important when new roads is given their standard. It seems like the target is the lowest costs in total. User costs and maintenance costs. They've used AADT 1000 to give an example.
> 
> AADT 1000
> 
> Road width 6,5 meter
> User costs 13 939 kr
> Maintenance costs 7 397 kr
> Total costs 21 336 kr
> 
> Road width 7,5 meter
> User costs 13 652 kr
> Maintenance costs 7 950 kr
> Total costs 21 602 kr
> 
> Road width 8,5 meter
> User costs 13 495 kr
> Maintenance costs 8 704 kr
> Total costs 22 100 kr
> 
> Road width 10 meter
> User costs 13 096 kr
> Maintenance costs 9 806 kr
> Total costs 22 902 kr
> 
> So even though the user costs goes down with 843 from 13 939 to 13 096 the maintenance costs goes up with 2 409 from 7 397 to 9 806. Making the total cost 1 566 higher with a 10 wide road compared to a 6,5 meter one at AADT 1000. That's why we wont see a motorway network like this.
> 
> For AADT 3000 the optimal standard is 8,5 meters.
> For AADT 8000 the optimal standard is 10 meters.
> And for AADT 15 000 the optimal standard is 20 meters.


I guess you mean this report? It seems like a fairly solid report, although it is now a bit old (both costs and benefits of roads probably have increased a little). However, in my view, the standards should also take into account the fact that:

 The actuall cost of building the road should be a part of the standard. It is (mostly) significantly more expensive to build roads in central areas, because land costs are higher, more tunnels are needed in order to avoid residential areas. If not in urban areas, building roads in central low-lands also usually means that you have to spend farm-land, which Norway has preciously little of, and where I in addition imagine it is more expensive to make proper fundaments for modern road than on rocky ground, or like in Østerdalen: moraine.
The composition of AADT is very different. Typically, on the main long distance highways (again like rv3) heavy traffic has a much higher percentage than on urban roads, leading to far higher "user costs" than the AADT number alone indicates.
Alternative forms of transport. In urban and central areas environmental friendly transport alternatives (rail/bus/bicycle/feet!) are available, whereas on long distance transport the alternative is usually the environmental disaster called airplanes (or in some cases, like Stavanger-Bergen or Trondheim-Kristiansund, the even worse alternative of high speed ferries). Hence in order to transfer traffic to the ground both high speed highways (budget alternative) and railways should be developed. However, in order to get short transport times, it is imperative that the whole route on for instance Trondheim-Oslo or Oslo-Bergen/Stavanger is built to motorway standard, such that transport times around 4 hours can be achieved, which is be comparable with the time most people use on air transport (air travel/connecting travel/checkin/baggage claim).
PS: I based my guesstimates on motorway projects in Norway lately, mostly built in rather central areas, and with a varying dose of tunnels/bridges. Since then, the E6 along Mjøsa has become more expensive, mainly because it was decided to build a long tunnel after protests against the original plans. However, Norwegian highway projects are not known to be built in a particular cost effective way, and it is said that Sweden manage to build their motorways for around 33 000 kr/m. In any case, I am pretty confident that the meter price for instance for Rv 3 would be significantly lower than what I indicated above.


Red-Lion said:


> I guess It's okay for me to join in on the political debate here, when I'm gonna trash talk all parties! You definitly see the election coming up. Parties are lying, denying responsibilities, promising, arguing, whining... But elections are fun, atleast in Norway. Makes my sad life a little bit more interesting for a few months!
> 
> I would vote for "common sense"-party, but since there are none, i'm gonna vote FrP. Yes they got a bunch of tards in their party, and a bunch of great people. But their politic is often based on objective view, and using money where it's benefits the most etc. I don't like the left parties, since they argue for worse roads just to make people use the car less, instead it creates traffic jams and more pollution. They wanna spend money on strange things, without giving real argumentation for it, and they don't wanna build up the income potential of norwegian business.
> 
> Maybe I should vote for the christian party in Norway, they believe that God told them to delay oil drilling in the North for 5 years.
> 
> What we need in norway is more common sense, and I think this can be more easily done if there were more direct elections of persons in power. Now with our semi-democracy we can only elect parties, not people.
> 
> Also there should be IQ testing of politicians and publications of the numbers!


[ot]
If I vote with my road brain I vote FrP. If I use my whole brain I rather vote Høyre and hope that they are willing to throw a few bones to FrP on the road issue, and get HSR into the deal....

However, I agree to a switch to single winner voting systems. Not to get rid of the parties as such, but to get rid of all the smaller parties and give clearer and more stable alternatives, and even more important: Someone we can keep accountable. As it is now, every decision is a compromize between different parties, and if things go wrong, or if the final results does not resemble much what they actually said before the elections, they later blame it on the other parties of the compromize.
[/ot]


----------



## Olekristian

Hehe .... Do't trust the politicians at all I will say. Whether it is election year or not.

And the 435 million NOK was adopted in the debate about NTP 2010-2019, and is as you say not mentioned with one word in the proposal to the government. The red-green government had not allocated any thing that is actually the most dangerous road in Norway (Kolomoen-Moelv), but after pressure by the Mayor of Lillehammer, Ringsaker, Hamar and Stange and from politicians in the Parliament from Hedmark, these money actually appropriated under debate in Parliament regarding the NTP 2010-2019. So the money is "Øremerket".

And as it stand in HA:

"Hvis bompengeselskapet forskuterer nødvendig med penger er det mulig å bygge firefelts E6 til Moelv ferdig i 2015. Dette opplyser prosjektleder Taale Stensbye i statens vegvesen.
Da stortinget tirsdag sa ja til å bygge ny E6 Skaberud-Labbedalen i Stange og Dal-Minnesund i Akershus, åpnet det også for at bompengeselskapet kan forskutere penger til å planlegge, prosjektere og erverve grunn til vegen fra Kolomoen i Stange til Lillehammer"

Later in the article Stensbye says that as it now seems all plans for new E6 to Moelv is ready in 2012 or 2013. Exception may be, and stresses can be, the stretch in northern Åkersvika if the government stop the plan. Whether the goverment stop the plan for Nordre Åkersvika-something I do not think-the plan veivesnet has is to to make the way to West Åkersvika and from Vien just north of the northern Åkersvika to Moelv. And to wait to build the plots through nordre Åkersvika.

But all this of course don't necessarily mean that the road is finished in 2015 like Stensby hope. But the chances of it has increased dramatically in relation to what they were when the government presented its proposal for the NTP 3-4 months ago.


----------



## Red-Lion

Brokke-suleskar is not too hilly if i remember correctly. But it is a narrow road, on the mountain. The problem is that it's over 1000 meters above sea lvl so you would need to climb like 400 meters in 40 km drive or so (if the road was straight!)... don't know if that is bad for emissions. I don't think it's viable to have an important crossing over there before it gets winter safe! But hey! let's build a 40km long dual motorway tunnel!


----------



## Kjello0

54°26′S 3°24′E;38503396 said:


> BTW: I notice now that your new E39 north of Kristiansund crosses Talgsjøen?


No, it use the same route as the Halsafjord project. 



















54°26′S 3°24′E;38503396 said:


> E39 is too long, we want a tunnel :lol:


You could get your way. 









Pricetag is supposed to be 7 billion NOK.


----------



## Red-Lion

7 billion let's do it!


----------



## Kjello0

Well, I still prefer my proposal of a new E 39. I think my E 39 might do Trondheim - Bergen in about 550 km. And atleast under 600 km.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

^^ 


Actually I said this more as a joke originally, as your vision had Norway seemed plastered with motorways and expressways, but no road Trondheim-Bergen. If the E39 indeed was built as you prescribe, KjelloO, there is probably not much point in an interior expressway Trondheim-Bergen in addition. However, it will take something like 40- 50 billion to make E39 completely ferryfree, without motorways. In comparison, we already have a summer ferry free road of about 650 km between Trondheim and Bergen using Valdresflya, but as it 1400 m high and hilly, it is not much use for trucks and closed during winter. ~630-660 km truckable year-round ferryfree road can be made by making a tunnel under Valdresflya, roughly 10 km, and can even be made roughly 30 km shorter if a tunnel of around 12 km is made between the Otta-valley and Dovre (NOT Dovre-mountain). This would be at a fraction of the cost of both the Luster-idea (Liv Signe must love this) and particular E39, but at the moment there are more pressing issues both at the Bergen and Trondheim side, so we might need the fight of the Luster guys :lol:. A ferry free E39 still will probably preffered by the trucks, as it probably will be less hilly.

Regarding E39, I of course now see that the current road and your proposal seriously split south-west of Halsa, introducing 3 extra fjord-crossings to Frei/Averøy, making the total number of links from Kristiansund to the mainland/Frei 4....

@Red-Lion: I actually meant the whole strech from Kongsberg to Sandnes, where you in total has to cross something like 5 valleys. In any case, Suleskar is currently very steep and winding on both side of the mountains, as well as over it.

@Olekristian: Good for you (and for the rest of the country). I actually tried to search the parliament discussions also the other day, but did not find any mentioning of E6 in the Hamar area. Probably was not looking at the right place. Hopefully they will also find some money for other considerably more trafficated roads other places in the country (like E6 south of Trondheim (>26 000 AADT) and E39 Sandnes-area)

Logging off for the summer.....


----------



## Red-Lion

^^ Well, his motorway system might be FrPish, but look at what the danes are building! 

I do believe however that before making too much motorways on <8000 AADT roads, that some pre-existing roads should be made wider. Especially the road between RV44/E39 intersection and Stavanger could probably need to be widened to 3 lines on parts of the stretch.


----------



## Ingenioren

It's a part of a scheme to lower car-trafic in the inner-city, is it not?  Atleast it will open up Tromsøgata for trafic... I mainly think it is a bad solution for the busses passing trough from 4 direction, and there are virtually one or two every minute.... :down: 

I don't get why they sign this route to Gjøvik anyway, can't they sign trough the tunnels instead?


----------



## NorthStar77

It's because of it's part of rv4. It's not exactly like it's less traffic on ring3. I have strong doubt that it will lower traffic, I think it will just be even more chaotic. I've walked down Trondheimsveien from Sinsen to Carl Berner some sundays this last year, and all I can say is that the chaos there during construction-period has not caused less traffic. When there's hundreds of meters of jam there even in the middle of sundays, I doubt people will automatically not drive there when the roundabout is finished. Much of the jam there now seems to be busses anyway. This is just my observation.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

*Bergen - Trondheim*



Kjello0 said:


> That depends on where you want the exit at the island Losna. As it's mostly mountain it's probably the best solution to place the exit at the north side, in direct contact to the bridge that will be needed over Storakersund. That alone would make the tunnel about 6 km longer. The subsea part would probably be around 10 km. So in total about 16 km I guess.


A Sognefjord crossing is actually possible, which I did not think before. At present, however, such a project would be hard to defend because of the relatively light traffic.

Now back to another road that probably would, at best, be some years or decades into the future: A faster Trondheim - Bergen road. The current most relevant roads (blue), and some proposal for new roads (various other colors) are given in the map below.








The purpose of my study was to try to determine whether an improvement of the road connection between the two cities (and thus automatically also Trondheim-Stavanger) is feasable. Preferably, the new link should be useful for trucks.

*Current alternatives:*
Although there are of course ways to drive between the number two (Bergen) and number 3/4 (Trondheim) city in Norway today, none of them are particularly good. This is a summary of the roads available today, with reference (except Dokka alternative) to map above:








The travel time estimates are quite crude. Firstly, the although the travel speed is not great anywhere in Norway, and particularly not on this route, it varies a lot between drivers, vehicles, weather, and traffic, especially where the road is steep and winding. According to this report, the average driving speed (along E39?) between Trondheim and Bergen is 67.6 km/h, which is the value I have used both for trucks and cars. Secondly, the time spent on ferries also varies wildy, and could be anything between 20 minutes and an hour or more depending on traffic, schedule, and ferry sailing length. I have used 40 minutes per ferry, which hopefully is not too far off the average value.

E 39 is supposed to be the road of the future, following the coast all the way from Kristiansand to Trondheim. However, because of all the ferries, this route is only used by tourists between Bergen and Trondheim. 

The other, interior alternatives all must cross at least two mountain ranges, one between western Norway and Gudbrandsdalen valley, and one between Gudbrandsdalen valley and central Norway (Dovrefjell). Dovrefjell does however already have a fairly good road (E6), which is only closed a day or two at most each winter, and is treated as a given in the following.

Although the Dokka alternative is winter open, it is too long to be useful for most people (the distance for trucks are even longer). Strynefjell I believe is the alternative favored by the trucks, and certainly the express buses, whereas Sognefjell/Tindevegen is the shortest (during summer). 

The latter goes through one of the most dramatic mountain arae of Norway, with view to some of the tallest mountains of the country. However, Tindevegen is very steep, narrow, and winding, and is only recommended for vehicles shorter than 10 m, which should be understandeble from the following images....
































The road continues across Sognefjellet, which is the highest mountain road pass of northern Europe at 1434 m altitude....








(there are roads going to higher altitude in Norway, however, but those are not passes)

Although Valdresflya is a little better for trucks, it is also rather steep, goes up to fairly high altitude and is like Sognefjellet/Tindevegen closed during winter (that means October to May!) due to severe weather.

In short, there is no ideal route Trondheim - Bergen today.....

*Possible new routes*
As could be understood from the discussion above, the major obstacle for an interior road between Bergen and Trondheim is the mountains between western Norway and eastern Norway, more specifically Sognefjorden and Gudbrandsdalen (i.e. E6).

As far as I can see, there are four major ways of eliminate this obstacle:

 Tunnel under Smørstadbrean glacier (shown in red on map above)
 Tunnel Årdal-Luster (roughly Tindevegen) and then tunnel from luster under Sognefjellet (shown in dark green above)
 Tunnel under Valdresflya (IMO this is not a realistic alternative, despite what I have said earlier, because the tunnel would have to be very long
 New road south-east of Valdresflya from E16 to Sjoa in Gudbrandsdalen

_Tunnel under Smørstadbrean_








This alternative is the most direct of all, and involves building a new road up Utladalen valley, and then a tunnel of between 16 and 20 km to Leirdalen. One issue with the shortest tunnel is that it goes to a higher altitude, about 1200 m, than any of the other alternatives. In addition, Utladalen is extremely steep at some points, and will probably require some extra, but shorter, tunnels. However, the major problem with this road is that it, rightfully, will raise a lot of protests. Although it just avoids the Jotunheimen national park, Utladalen is a rather pristine area with great views and waterfalls, which most Norwegians probably would like to keep undeveloped.

_Tunnel alternative via Luster_
This alternative has already been discussed in this thread, and there is not much to say about it, except that it will require two rather than one long tunnel, and Luster would represent a detour compared with a Smørstadbrean tunnel. The "shorter" Sognefjell tunnel of 17 km would also be relatively steep at 5 %. However, it will not awake much environmental protests, and the lobbying of the Luster community would probably be useful for the project.

_ Vågamo - Dovre shortcut_








It is worth noting, that both Smørstadbrean tunnel and Luster alternatives would benefit greatly from a new tunnel towards E6. As shown in the map above, a tunnel from Vågåmo to Dovre of 12 km would shorten the route with 37 km for cars and 61 km for trucks.

_E16 (Beitostølen) to Sjoa_








I started considering this alternative after reading a post on a Norwegian trucking site, which btw also provides an impressing picture series from the current Valdresflya road.

Two alternatives for this route are shown in the map above. I believe it should be possible to make a route here with relatively few tunnels, shown in pink. However, this road would be rather steep, and fairly long for trucks as they have to make a detour via Fagernes. With more tunnels, the route would be shorter, but the cost would probably approach what the other alternatives.

_E39_
A ferry free E39 is a vision being pushed by local politicians all along the Norwegian west coast, and as shown by Kjello0 earlier in this thread this could result in a relatively short and fast road. However, it requires a lot of fjord crossings and heavy investments. However, since the coast is more populated than the interior, this road will get more local traffic, and also connect Bergen/Trondheim to cities like Molde, Kristiansund, Ålesund, Måløy etc.

*Summary/Conclusions*








The alternatives are summed up in the table above. The "saved km" and "saved time" columns compares the driving distance and time with the fastest winter open alternative today, which is Strynefjell. It is possible to make a truckable ferry-free all-season road Trondheim by constructing only between 48 and 72 km of new road. The by far shortest alternative, a tunnel under Smøstadbrean glacier around the Jotunheimen national park is quite environmentally problematic and would probably never be accepted. Other alternatives are more expensive (via Luster) or longer (via Beitostølen/Sjoa).

Although an interior Trondheim-Bergen link is far cheaper than upgrading the E39 to a modern ferry free road, I am not sure it will ever happen. The problem is that the neither the Trondheim area or western Norway would have such a road high up on the priority list at the moment, as they both are more concerned about getting good connections to neighboring cities along the cost (i.e. improving E39), as well as getting better connection to Oslo. Thus, probably the local politicians close to the proposed new roads would have to push such a project through, which would be difficult, but, as numerous previous projects have shown, not impossible....


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

A panorama from Tindevegen (not my own):


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Nice work on the Bergen - Trondheim roads.

What's the current travel time for cars and trucks?

Despite the relatively short distances, I think the Bergen region is pretty remote in terms of driving time.


----------



## Red-Lion

Sognefjellet is not really a good alternative for Stavanger now if I'm not mistaken, but with Rogfast etc, this would probably become the prefered route for Stavanger-Trondheim too.

oh, and good job with that post! of Bergen-Trondheim improvements!


----------



## Kjello0

Impressed by your work. 
But I see two foults. Over Strynfjellet car distance is 695 km. But truck distance is a massive 745 km and two ferries. 
First trucks have to drive via Otta as you showed on your map. But you forgot that when summed up the current routes. This makes the route 23,5 km longer.
But in adition Rv 60 from Stryn to Byrkjelo is in no way suitable for trucks. Meaning trucks have to drive all the way to Nordfjordeid. Another 26,5 km and a ferry. Meaning the total distance for trucks over Strynfjellet is 745,4 km and two ferries.


----------



## IceCheese

Great work, but personally, I would also much more like to see a coastal E39 alternative for the Bergen-Tronheim route. Most people in this country live along the coast, and the road would be much more feasable in terms of picking up more local traffic. I would think we would be able to do so much more with the same money by focusing the traffic in this area on only one route, while your (54°26′S 3°24′E) alternative would require lots of ongoing works on both E39 and the mountain passes. You also state yourself that mountainpasses have unpredictable weather, an even with your tunnels, that will to a certain degree keep influencing the traffic.

As stated previously in this thread, a strong, ferry-free E39 could obsolete some of the many airports in North-Western Norway, and tie the region together more than today. In worst case, if E39 should continue with one or two ferry connections, these should be frequent, free and going 24/7.

So my conclusion is that the mountainpasses should be kept as mostly tourist roads, just as they are today


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

Thanks for the comments guys, and sorry for the late reply. (Summer is over, fall is here, and there is something called work and, in Norway at least, "matauk" (which translates to something like "increasing the supply of food in a household by for instance berry/mushroom picking and home gardening", at least according to the dictionary, but I might add hunting and fishing...)

There is btw an impressive picture series from Valdresflya here which you might enjoy even if it the text is in Norwegian.


ChrisZwolle said:


> Nice work on the Bergen - Trondheim roads.
> 
> What's the current travel time for cars and trucks?
> 
> Despite the relatively short distances, I think the Bergen region is pretty remote in terms of driving time.


I have added some travel times to my tables, but as I warn below the first tables, these are rough estimates that can vary quite a bit. Regarding the remoteness of Bergen, I think it depends on the eyes that are looking. Bergen has traditionally been looking a lot more towards the sea and trading partners in UK and Germany than to the rest of Norway. Until recently, for instance, Bergen had direct ferry links to the UK.


Red-Lion said:


> Sognefjellet is not really a good alternative for Stavanger now if I'm not mistaken, but with Rogfast etc, this would probably become the prefered route for Stavanger-Trondheim too.
> 
> oh, and good job with that post! of Bergen-Trondheim improvements!


Realistically, I guess both Rogfast and Hordfast will be built first anyway, and the first (and I think silly) Hardanger fjord bridge is already U/C.


Kjello0 said:


> Impressed by your work.
> But I see two foults. Over Strynfjellet car distance is 695 km. But truck distance is a massive 745 km and two ferries.
> First trucks have to drive via Otta as you showed on your map. But you forgot that when summed up the current routes. This makes the route 23,5 km longer.
> But in adition Rv 60 from Stryn to Byrkjelo is in no way suitable for trucks. Meaning trucks have to drive all the way to Nordfjordeid. Another 26,5 km and a ferry. Meaning the total distance for trucks over Strynfjellet is 745,4 km and two ferries.


Thanks for the correction, I have now updated the tables. Honestly, I have not been driving between Nordfjord and Sognefjorden since I was a kid, and I did not bother to check that route to carefully since it is not a particularly good future alternative anyway.


IceCheese said:


> Great work, but personally, I would also much more like to see a coastal E39 alternative for the Bergen-Tronheim route. Most people in this country live along the coast, and the road would be much more feasable in terms of picking up more local traffic. I would think we would be able to do so much more with the same money by focusing the traffic in this area on only one route, while your (54°26′S 3°24′E) alternative would require lots of ongoing works on both E39 and the mountain passes. You also state yourself that mountainpasses have unpredictable weather, an even with your tunnels, that will to a certain degree keep influencing the traffic.
> 
> As stated previously in this thread, a strong, ferry-free E39 could obsolete some of the many airports in North-Western Norway, and tie the region together more than today. In worst case, if E39 should continue with one or two ferry connections, these should be frequent, free and going 24/7.
> 
> So my conclusion is that the mountainpasses should be kept as mostly tourist roads, just as they are today


As I commented above, the E 39 certainly serves other, and probably more important needs than an interior Trondheim-Bergen road, and E39 also has a lot more friends politically, as this is the focus along the whole coast. However, although it might not happen, I still think it is a good idea to make an interiour route, because:

 The investments required are really minor compared with a ferry free E39. Note that even the cheapest alternative Beitostølen-Heidal-Sjoa, which probably is what I would choose in the short run, with 60 km new road and only a few short tunnels makes the truck distance almost two hours shorter. The price tag would probably be around 1 billion NOK, and could be something that we could enjoy in our lifetime. The more ambitious plans, with saved truck driving times of 3-4 hours, are more costly, and not as sensible, but would in total probably cost less than for instance Romsdalsfjord or Sognefjord crossing. 
 I do not believe any of the alternatives I mentioned would be prone to closures. Again, probably Beitostølen-Vinstre-Heidal is most exposed, but if it is built relatively high in the terrain (such that the snow blows off), it probably would have a regularity close to that of Dovrefjell, which has far more closures than for instance the Oslo-fjord tunnel and certainly any ferry crossing.
 Even if E39 should be improved some decades ahead to the degree that travel times can compete with an interior alternative, it would still be useful for the (not terribly numerous) people of upper Oppland and Sogn.


----------



## Ingenioren

I imagine an upgrade of Rv60 will be forced ahead with the finishing of Knivsvegen(E39.) this road will see increased trafic aswell, there's even been discussed rerouting E39 trough this corridor. And then you have an inland-road E39 north from Bergen and East on Rv15 (Wich is surpricingly good standard considering it doesn't connect villages basicly) - i've heard the tunnels are quite low, but these should be raised to 4,20 anyway, then E6 to Trondheim, suitable for trucks all year.


----------



## ElviS77

Ingenioren said:


> I imagine an upgrade of Rv60 will be forced ahead with the finishing of Knivsvegen(E39.) this road will see increased trafic aswell, there's even been discussed rerouting E39 trough this corridor. And then you have an inland-road E39 north from Bergen and East on Rv15 (Wich is surpricingly good standard considering it doesn't connect villages basicly) - i've heard the tunnels are quite low, but these should be raised to 4,20 anyway, then E6 to Trondheim, suitable for trucks all year.


I believe that a rerouting of the E39 in the current rv 60 corridor is the only reasonable move post Kvisvegen. Already ferry free (even though in apalling condition...), and a fjord crossing here would shorten the E39 considerably.


----------



## ElviS77

54°26′S 3°24′E;41680358 said:


> Although an interior Trondheim-Bergen link is far cheaper than upgrading the E39 to a modern ferry free road, I am not sure it will ever happen. The problem is that the neither the Trondheim area or western Norway would have such a road high up on the priority list at the moment, as they both are more concerned about getting good connections to neighboring cities along the cost (i.e. improving E39), as well as getting better connection to Oslo. Thus, probably the local politicians close to the proposed new roads would have to push such a project through, which would be difficult, but, as numerous previous projects have shown, not impossible....


Nice work compiling alternative routes, but I believe that these ideas will remain ideas in the forseeable future. As you say, a decent and possibly even ferry-free E39 has many supporters, even within influential lobby groups. A new shorter link between Trøndelag and (south-)western parts of Norway is not considered worthwhile.


----------



## babareebu serb

NorthStar77 said:


> We didn't drive the whole way in one day. And when I think of it, we didn't drive from Oslo either. We spent two nights near Besseggen, since we walked it, then we spent one night at some friends that lives on the place before Filefjell. The next day, we had planned to drive to Bergen, only to stop in Lærdal, where I have family. But because we stopped for 3-4 hours, we had to spend the night in Voss, before finally driving to Bergen the next day. I think it is possible to drive Oslo-Bergen in 7 hours, if you don't have any stops.
> 
> 
> I think it is 80km/h.
> 
> 
> I haven't heard about any controlls on the 4 lane highways down here. Most people drive above the speedlimit on E6 towards Gardemoen and E18 in Vestfold. Many people, especially Audi-owners, drive 140-150 easily, and they get angry if you get in their way, even if you drive 120-130..
> 
> 
> 
> Btw, here are two photos from the trip back. This is 1/2 hour or so before entering the Lærdaltunnel driving from Bergen.


I was driving till Tromsoe,landscape in norway is beautiful,similar as in Austria,i spent my time by my Serbian friends living in Tromsoe,next time I will drive till Kirkenes and go over border with Russia,with a lot of photos!Bye!


----------



## Jonas84

*New E18*

A new stretch of motorway has just been opened south in Norway.
The road is part of the E18, the main road from Oslo to the fifth largest city in Norway, Kristiansand (pop 80.000). This new stretch is 38 km long and goes from the town of Grimstad to Kristiansand. The four lane road is built in demanding rolling terrain and conists of several bridges and seven tunnels.
AADT on this part of E18 is about 10.000, so there's plenty of space.
The road is tolled with an automatic toll-system and costs NOK 30 (Eur 3,50) to drive one way.












I've made some photos of the first segment, from Grimstad to the exit to Lillesand. This part is not the most interesting since the longest tunnels and bridges are located west of Lillesand. Still a nice little drive for a saturday afternoon.

The rest of the motorway is expected to open next weekend and I'll be back with more photos then.









We enter the new highway just west of Grimstad.


















16 km to Lillesand.









First exit take you to road 420, former E18.









Here's the junction.


















Resting area and information about Lillesand one km ahead.









The beauty of the automatic toll plaza is that you don't have to stop or even slow down to pass it.









This intersection, located right before the toll station, doesn't lead to any place. It's just two roundabouts, a bridge and a small rest area on the left side of the road. The junction was built with a future industrial area in mind.









Aww, my wallet hurts....



























Nice bridge









This is the only tunnel on the stretch from Grimstad to Lillesand.









Lillesand exit, 1000 m.


----------



## Red-Lion

So what have we learned so far in the political campaign about the Norwegian roads?

1. Even with full scale investments the highway network will have the required standards after atleast 25 years.
2. Botzwana actually has worse roads than Norway.
3. Norwegian road attourities are investing millions in replacing sign posts, so that people driving of the worst roads will hit signs that breaks easier so they don't hurt the people. I vote for full coverage of the road sides with pillows etc! Cheaper than building safe roads?


----------



## Hansadyret

Bigger projects is the way to go to get more road for the money as we clearly see with the new E18 between Grimstad and Kristiansand.
The cost of this road (38km) is about the same as the new road between Os and Rådal in Bergen wich is only 13 km at a cost of 3,8 billion NOK, Crazy. I guess it's because of all the tunnels. Infrastructure in western Norway is realy expensive.


----------



## Jonas84

Here's some of the constructions on E18 Grimstad - Kristiansand (yeah I know my paint-skills are amazing!). 6 km of the road goes in tunnels and the highest bridge (up to the left) is 60 m tall. I'm not 100 % sure that a motorway built near Bergen has to cost three times as much as this...


----------



## IceCheese

Nice pics from E18:cheers: Your first pictures looks to be from a video... In that case, will you post that too?


----------



## Hansadyret

Jonas84 said:


> I'm not 100 % sure that a motorway built near Bergen has to cost three times as much as this...


There is something fishy about this Os-Bergen project even if 11 of 13 km is tunnels there are no bridges like Kristiansand-Grimstad and the road costs three times as much(same with the new ringvei vest in Bergen). Looks like the less private competition for the project has it's impact on the costs.

Kort og dyrt i vest, langt og billig i sør

After this article was published the costs has increased by 400mill NOK.


----------



## Ingenioren

It's not that much cheaper than other projects - compare it to for example E18 Vestfold, the Os-project is just insanly expensive, not the other way around.... The point is however not to let private build or not build - but to commit to longer stretches at once, as there are always private building roads trough biding anyway, but why would we need private funding for a motorway with worse interest-rate than what the state can get?


----------



## Jonas84

IceCheese said:


> Nice pics from E18:cheers: Your first pictures looks to be from a video... In that case, will you post that too?


There you go! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y2MXNnQ2Voo

Only first 13 km of the road though. Video starts one minute before we enter the new motorway.


----------



## Hansadyret

I think it's a combination between bigger projects and increased private competition. With bigger projects and longer stretches it allso becomes more interesting for huge international companies to bid. 
The way we usually build roads in Norway with small streches each time is a extremely expensive way of doing things.


----------



## Ingenioren

The missing link on E6 from Oslo to Sweden has opened:









I drove it, and it was a delight, unfortunatly it's only 90km/h still... And 80km/h in E18-junction. The tunnel is very wide and bright, altough steep so there was some minor slowdown in trafic. Old E6 route has changed name to Rv156...


----------



## Jonas84

Ingenioren said:


> The missing link on E6 from Oslo to Sweden has opened:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I drove it, and it was a delight, unfortunatly it's only 90km/h still... And 80km/h in E18-junction. The tunnel is very wide and bright, altough steep so there was some minor slowdown in trafic. Old E6 route has changed name to Rv156...


Yeah, finally motorway all the way from Oslo to Sweden.


----------



## IceCheese

Statens Vegvesen (Norwegian Road Authorities) launces a new "spy-cam"-service on their webpage today. Now everyone can access some of their traffic-cams, but they will be updated with varying frequency...

Here's the page: http://www.vegvesen.no/Trafikkinformasjon/Reiseinformasjon/Trafikkmeldinger/Webkamera

And here's one showing the construction of "Smaalenenes bru", a part of the new E18 motorway through Østfold: http://www.vegvesen.no/Trafikkinformasjon/Reiseinformasjon/Trafikkmeldinger/Webkamera?kamera=Smaalenene bru&lat=59.70655581142613&lng=11.12091064453125&zoom=9


----------



## Ingenioren

No cams in Oslo? Lucky for me i can see the most important roads from the window, but it would be handy to know where the trafic is flowing and not sometimes


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

^^ Seems like the current service does not cover any cities at all...



Hansadyret said:


> I think it's a combination between bigger projects and increased private competition. With bigger projects and longer stretches it allso becomes more interesting for huge international companies to bid.
> The way we usually build roads in Norway with small streches each time is a extremely expensive way of doing things.


Now for a second consequitive 4-year period a *minority* of the Norwegian people has decided that we should continue with the small projects, except some roads aroung Oslo and a few toll financed tunnels here and there, organized the good ol inefficient public road authority (Vegvesenet) way with local councils having the upper hand :bleep:

(No, in the Norwegian election system the will of the majority of the people is not always reflected in the number of MPs, partly because the votes of the northernmost conties count more, and partly because bigger parties are somewhat favoured. In the national election on Monday the oposition in fact won by roughly 1.5 % /45 000 in terms of number of votes, but got fewer MPs than the ruling coalition. But at least we manage to count the votes without having to go to the courts as certain other countries...)


----------



## kossia

54°26′S 3°24′E;41680620 said:


> A panorama from Tindevegen (not my own):


Norway is so beautiful! I want to visit it one day...


----------



## IceCheese

54°26′S 3°24′E;43193016 said:


> ^^ Seems like the current service does not cover any cities at all...
> 
> 
> Now for a second consequitive 4-year period a *minority* of the Norwegian people has decided that we should continue with the small projects, except some roads aroung Oslo and a few toll financed tunnels here and there, organized the good ol inefficient public road authority (Vegvesenet) way with local councils having the upper hand :bleep:
> 
> (No, in the Norwegian election system the will of the majority of the people is not always reflected in the number of MPs, partly because the votes of the northernmost conties count more, and partly because bigger parties are somewhat favoured. In the national election on Monday the oposition in fact won by roughly 1.5 % /45 000 in terms of number of votes, but got fewer MPs than the ruling coalition. But at least we manage to count the votes without having to go to the courts as certain other countries...)


This only proves that the Norwegian people is brainwashed, and will eventually accept just about everything you put out for them. This especially is the case with a lot older people, who grew up in the glory days of Ap, when there just wasn't any other parties socially acceptable to vote on. I don't think these people essentially even listen to what any of the parties say. The just vote as anothe everyday chore, like brushing their teeth or getting dressed in the morning.



...*Trying to find alibi for posting unnecessary political ranting in motorway-thread*...


Look, a motorway!!


---------------

------     -----

---------------



---------------

---     ------

---------------


----------



## mike7743

it's fair to say Norway has the least impressive highways (in terms of design and quality) in the developed world, despite being one of the richest nations in the world. I don't get it.


----------



## GuyFromMoss

mike7743 said:


> it's fair to say Norway has the least impressive highways (in terms of design and quality) in the developed world, despite being one of the richest nations in the world. I don't get it.


I disagree. Norway's highway system might lack some motorways here and there, but the general quality is rather good. The newer highways and motorways have very high standard.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

^^Have you ever been outside Norway? If so, please give me a single (1) DEVELOPED country with worse highways than Norway. (That several developing countries I have visited have better road standard than Norway is another story).

I'll give you that a tiny fraction of the E6 and E18 highways now have acceptable standard, limited to the Halden-Gardermoen-Tønsberg triangle, otherwise even new roads and roads U/C or planned are mostly substandard (and unsafe / unefficient) compared with what they have already got long ago in most other developed countries.
[ot]


kossia said:


> Norway is so beautiful! I want to visit it one day...


To become more tempted, try the excellent pictorial threads of Þróndeimr in the Nordic section, starting with the main Þróndeimr Photolab.... (The most dramatic scenery is perhaps towards the end of the thread)

And when you go, stay away from the Polar bears, they don't always have a whale to feed on








(Seriously, there have not been polar bears on mainland Norway for ages, but the picture above was recently taken in the Svalbard / Spitsbergen achipelago where they still thrive until global warming melts the artic ice and their hunting pattern no longer is possible. Nobody should wander around up there without a gun, as the polar bears think humans are food.)
[/ot]


----------



## IceCheese

54°26′S 3°24′E;43245938 said:


> as the polar bears think humans are food.)
> [/ot]


Well, aren't they?:dunno:


----------



## Ingenioren

Crossing E6 in Groruddalen, Oslo:


----------



## katia72

*I agree with you...*



mike7743 said:


> it's fair to say Norway has the least impressive highways (in terms of design and quality) in the developed world, despite being one of the richest nations in the world. I don't get it.


...the roads are poor and Norwegian motorists pay lots of money without getting good roads. And it is built to litle highwayshno:


----------



## Kjello0

Car, road and fuel taxes paid in 2008 was 62,4 billion NOK. At the same time the road budget was only 17 billion. Which of about half goes to maintenance. And the last half is split on half to new roads and about half to other investments. This mean about 4 billion NOK each year to new roads. And to make the whole thing extra sweet, 4,6 billions of those 62,4 come from toll roads. Meaning we pay more in toll road taxes each year than we get new roads.

The current goverment even said "Where should we else get the money from?" when newspaper Dagens Næringsliv showed them the real facts.

If we actually used the money we pay in car, road and fuel taxes on new roads we could get a nice highway network in 15 years.


----------



## IceCheese

^^But then we wouldn't be able to maintain our freakingly huge and inefficien public sector! What will the Norwegian people do for a living then? Work?!


----------



## Kjello0

Let them build the roads


----------



## katia72

*Just wondering ...*



Kjello0 said:


> Let them build the roads


Since many drivers are members of NAF why not get into a sort of protest ...?
Like they do in France or other countries..?


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Sounds a freaking lot like the Netherlands...

drivers that generate revenue that's multiple times the road budget, big public sector that consumes a lot of tax money, and a motorist association that's very passive...


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Olden - Innvik is only a short section though. If the rest of the road is okay, they maybe could replace this section with a 9 km tunnel.


----------



## Bobek_Azbest

I had to reverse quite some distance to let the truck pass on this exact stretch when I was in Norway two years ago.


----------



## Oslo 5

*Road lights has huge traffic safety gains*



Ingenioren said:


> Roadlights on motorways is a big waste of money, these roads even have fences to keep larger animals from entering. And they don't keep you from sleeping, in fact they are WORSE. Working as a Halden Taxi-driver, i have driven a lot at night on both Norwegian and Swedish rural E6-motorways  Only when there is a lot of fog are these lights at aid, those new pearl-rand lights will probably work just as good. But keeping retards from driving the wrong way? Probably not.... They could instead use spikestrips on those suckers


Hi, I have to disagree with you on this.
Road lights are among the most effective traffic safety measures available (this has been proven in numerous international studies from as early as the late 1940s). The savings in reduced accidents and fatalities is much higher than the cost of electricity (modern road lights are very energy efficient also). I hope therefore that Norway won’t start any large scale implementation of light studs instead of road lights. I for one will speak out against this new trial. I drove the E6 stretch at night yesterday, and it was not very pleasant. And yes, I have driven on motorways at night (dark ones and lighted) both in Sweden, on the Continent, in UK and in USA at night, and it is not always pleasant, especially in heavy traffic and rain. Do also remember that older people needs more light to see well (at 40 the need is double of that which was needed at 20, and at 60 the need is six fold).


----------



## zaphod

instead of LEDs and complex sensors, what about reflective cat's eyes that are colored white on the front face, and red on the back face. Then if a car's headlight illuminates it from the wrong direction it will shine red?

gee, the wonders of technology


----------



## Kjello0

Wohoo!
We get an massive 1,67 billion extra in road investments next year. 
So now we are up in 6,5 billion in road investments a year. That's less than NTP promissed us.

As stated earlier in this topic, we should ask ourself what standard our transport network should have in 2050.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

In my opinion, thinking in terms as "2050" is way too far ahead. It allows for politicians to postpone projects.


----------



## Ingenioren

Kjello0 said:


> Wohoo!
> We get an massive 1,67 billion extra in road investments next year.
> So now we are up in 6,5 billion in road investments a year. That's less than NTP promissed us.
> 
> As stated earlier in this topic, we should ask ourself what standard our transport network should have in 2050.


20 % is a rather good growthrate tough - don't you think? Remember if the growth is to fast Vegvesenet/Jernbaneverket might have trouble handling it...


----------



## IceCheese

^^Then get in some cheap European workers on it. And I will never be impressed by how much the government pays in road fundings, as long as the car drivers pay just as much in toll booths.

Same news is that the government will give a whole billion A WHOLE billion NOK to the counties, as a compensation for giving them charge over most of the old national road-system. Experts says there will take tens of billions alone to make these roads only into "acceptible" standard.:nuts:
So then let us all place bets on how long it will take before Liv Signe Navarsete (Sp) or anyone else of the government starts complaining that the counties don't do enough for these roadshno:


----------



## Kjello0

ChrisZwolle said:


> In my opinion, thinking in terms as "2050" is way too far ahead. It allows for politicians to postpone projects.


Well, when you got so much problems as we got here in Norway you will need 40 years to first discuss, plan and then build everything. But when we have agreed on how it should look in 2050 we do of course need goals on how it should look in 2020, 2025 etc. 

With the current fundings it will take 70 years to only upgrade the stamvei network which counts only 8 939 km out of 27 463 km of national routes. And then you may guess how long it will take before all national routes have the needed standard. In adition we know that every new road is only planed 20 years ahead. Meaning that we probably never will have a modern infrastructure in this country.


----------



## KiwiRob

katia72 said:


> Since many drivers are members of NAF why not get into a sort of protest ...?
> Like they do in France or other countries..?


Norwegians are too much like sheep to protest, it would take immigination.

Whoever if the new government is going to do what they said they would do it looks like more money is going to be spent on new roads and upgrading the existing poor ones.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

Ingenioren said:


> 20 % is a rather good growthrate tough - don't you think? Remember if the growth is to fast Vegvesenet/Jernbaneverket might have trouble handling it...


This is far lower than the little ambitious NTP though, which even if it were followed would leave us with a substandard road network within our lifetime. In particular, of course, I am dissapointed with the funding in my own county. The only new project, is 1 km or so of 100 % toll financed road. Also rv 3 got 50 million instead of the promised 140.

Comparing with other posts in the budget, the fraction going to transportation is in fact declining, a role it shares with education / research. This government is good at spending bucks, but very bad at prioritizing.




ChrisZwolle said:


> Olden - Innvik is only a short section though. If the rest of the road is okay, they maybe could replace this section with a 9 km tunnel.


That won't happen in a while. Although this video gives another impression, this is not a very important road (this video was probably made or sponsored by the local trucking company...). IMO it is worse that some of the most important roads in Norway connecting the bigger regions are regularly closed because they are too narrow and poor maintained, causing closures lasting for hours at a time, like these two dual-truck gridlocks on RV 3:

















(of course, not a single penny to fix any of the involved sections in the current budget)


----------



## KiwiRob

I believe the onlky way for Norway to get a decent road network is to do what the Croatians did, designate it as a national priority, pay for it with tolls. I know this will be unpopular but I can't see any other way for this country to get the roads it needs.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

^^ Personally I would not mind paying more in tolls, I could afford it. However, for the transportation sector, or at least the bussinesses depending on them, it would be not be very smart to add even more costs. Norwegian industry is already severly handicapped due to the high transport costs. However, once the roads are in place, they would probably be happy even with tolls, if new roads are built in such a fashion that transportation time is seriously shortened. Thus, the real uphill would be public acceptance. Motorists already pay several times more to the government than they get back in terms of roads. With the new E6 tolls Gardemoen-Kolomoen, and the already more or less accepted tolls scheme for E6 / rv 3 in Trøndelag, rv 3 south of Elverum, and E6 in Oppland, a trip between Oslo and Trondheim will already cost a couple of hundred kr in tolls. I hardly expect voters to accept anything more.


----------



## Kjello0

How many times are we supposed to pay for the same peice of road?
We have taxes. Roads is one of their tasks too you know.
We have car taxes. 
We have fuel taxes.
We have toll roads.

Even when we sum ony the last three the amount we pay each year surpass 60 billion NOK. And what do we get back? a comunication budget of 27,9 billion NOK. And a road budget of only 17 billion. That's only 27% out of the 62,2 billion NOK we pay in car taxes, fuel taxes and toll roads. We should be considered as customers, and we simply don't get what we pay for.
And what do we use those 17 billions on?
7,5 billion on maintenance.
1,5 billion on ferry services.
1 billion on research.
500 millions on OPS.
6,5 billions on "road investments"
But road investments is not the same as road building. Road investments is everything from new railing, sidewalks, rock slide protection and so on. Even city development projects like the Bergen Light Rail goes under this post. This mean that on new roads the goverment only spends 4-4,5 billion NOK on road building. That's even less than what we pay in toll roads today. So it's not about the money. It's about the lack of interest of building roads from our goverments the last 20 years. And those roads that actually gets build is so bad planed that most of them will be out of date within 15 years. Which isn't strange since all road projects is only planed 20 years ahead. With only 1% annual growth.

I don't see why road building have to be so complicated in Norway. 
Agree on what we need. 
Find out what it cost. 
And just fucking build it!


----------



## KiwiRob

ElviS77 said:


> I don't completely disagree, I'm only saying that currently, no country on the face of the earth (with a partial exception for China...) are developing massive new government-funded motorway networks.


Have you been to Croatia recently, over the past 10 years they have built a motorway network which must be one of the best I've ever driven on, when finished it will connect all the major cities and towns in Croatia. I believe it's now about 75& complete with only a few links to the south of Split, the link from Reijka South and the connection to Pula. All the missing links are currently under construction. This network is partially funded by tolls and by govt investment. Once the motorway network is complete then the next major project will be the railways. 

New Zealand is financing major highway projects all through direct govt funding, the Waikato Expressway, major motorway projects in Auckland and Tauranga, and further improvement to State Highway 1 where they are increasing passing lanes, road realignments, improving safety, grade separating intersections and providing bypasses for certain towns.


----------



## KiwiRob

Kjello0 said:


> I don't see why road building have to be so complicated in Norway.
> Agree on what we need.
> Find out what it cost.
> And just fucking build it!


You summed it up rather nicely, now why the **** don't Norwegians get out and protest, maybe the trucking industry could stage some go slowers (since they already go pretty slow), cause some major disruptions to traffic, or block the major transport routes out of Norway, maybe Norwegians could grow a pair and stage an act of civil disobedience, something like everyone not paying the annual car registration, hit the govt where it hurts, in the wallet. Unless people actually start raising a ruckus and demanding improvements and protest the govt just won't act.


----------



## babareebu serb

What is about roads on the east of Norway near border with Russia and Finland??Are somewhere that photos??


----------



## IceCheese

^^I've never been there myself, but Wikimedia has a couple of photos in their database from our northernmost county:

E6 in Finnmark, Sennalandet:









Rv92 on border between Norway and Finland, over river Anárjohka:


----------



## katia72

*As same in Poland...*



KiwiRob said:


> Have you been to Croatia recently, over the past 10 years they have built a motorway network which must be one of the best I've ever driven on, when finished it will connect all the major cities and towns in Croatia. I believe it's now about 75& complete with only a few links to the south of Split, the link from Reijka South and the connection to Pula. All the missing links are currently under construction. This network is partially funded by tolls and by govt investment. Once the motorway network is complete then the next major project will be the railways.
> 
> New Zealand is financing major highway projects all through direct govt funding, the Waikato Expressway, major motorway projects in Auckland and Tauranga, and further improvement to State Highway 1 where they are increasing passing lanes, road realignments, improving safety, grade separating intersections and providing bypasses for certain towns.



*Polands gouverment, spent lots of money for big road projects. At present we have 881km of motorways and 340km expressways. The plan is to build a 2004 km motorways and 5760km of expressways. By the end of 2010 there will be 357 km more of motorways and expressways.

This map shows the graduated road projects, construction and future plan.*
http://img33.imageshack.us/img33/5441/autostradyidrogiekspres.png
:banana:


----------



## katia72

*This map is better:*
http://img17.imageshack.us/img17/4620/94072510.png

continuous red line - the motorways existing
red dashed line - the motorways construction
continuous yellow line - express highways existing
yellow dashed line - the express highways construction


----------



## mati162c

i think it's a wrong thread...


----------



## Þróndeimr

New E6 2x2 south of Steinkjer opens tomorrow. Finally!

http://www.t-a.no/nyheter/article95728.ece

Kjello0, you have turned into a Nord Trønder? what does Steinkjer have that Trondheim does not?


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

^^
Picture from the article:








Quote from the discussion:
"This must be the narrowest four lane road in the world"

Hopefully, the rest of the Trondheim-Steinkjer road, when completed some time around year 2150, will be a few cm broader....



Kjello0 said:


> This mean that on new roads the goverment only spends 4-4,5 billion NOK on road building.


To put this in perspective, 4 billion is:

0.4 % of the income side of the budget (1 trillion in the budget, real number probably higher)
0.14 % of the government savings abroad ("oil fund") at the end of 2010 (2.9 trillions)
0.16 % of GDP in 2008 (2.55 trillions)
1.3 % of various national government welfare expenditures (308 billions)(sick leave, pensions, unemployment benefits etc, "folketrygden"), excluding for instance hospitals and services paid by the cities.
About a third of the work force currently lives on various kinds of welfare benefits; Norway also has a large public sector. In fact, a total of 2 million is currently living on public money one way or the other. Put some of these people to work, I would say....



KiwiRob said:


> Have you been to Croatia recently, over the past 10 years they have built a motorway network which must be one of the best I've ever driven on.....


Very interesting, but I don't think Elvis77 is waiting for your reply on this any more....:lol:


KiwiRob said:


> You summed it up rather nicely, now why the **** don't Norwegians get out and protest, maybe the trucking industry could stage some go slowers (since they already go pretty slow), cause some major disruptions to traffic, or block the major transport routes out of Norway, maybe Norwegians could grow a pair and stage an act of civil disobedience, something like everyone not paying the annual car registration, hit the govt where it hurts, in the wallet. Unless people actually start raising a ruckus and demanding improvements and protest the govt just won't act.


Run for president!


mati162c said:


> i think it's a wrong thread...


No, it illustrates how a comparably poor country manages that a rich one like Norway does not (even though there are plenty of Polish workers here, doing a very good job!)


----------



## Kjello0

Þróndeimr said:


> Kjello0, you have turned into a Nord Trønder? what does Steinkjer have that Trondheim does not?


A school of economics and administration where people with normal grades may attend. 

Trondheim was of course my first choice.

Regarding the new road they should have made three meters wider so it could be signposted motorway.


----------



## Ingenioren

What speed limit does it have, 80km/h? The narrow 4-lane roads feels surpricingly fine, i've driven a lot on Rv2 wich is also a narrow 4-lane road (90km/h limit.) Truckers and buses may feel otherwise tough, i can't speak on their behalf....


----------



## Þróndeimr

^^ It has been 80km/h on the part that was opened earlier.



Kjello0 said:


> A school of economics and administration where people with normal grades may attend.
> 
> Trondheim was of course my first choice.


Smart!

Some more pictures of new E6.


----------



## Ingenioren

I'm glad they have made what seems to be an expensive bikeroute (safer with it's own bridge instead of forcing them on the bridge further south.) even tough it will probably only serve a few dedicated users a day, it gives people a choice for a healthy and cheap transportation without feeling like a 2nd class roaduser


----------



## Þróndeimr

Guess what. The new road have just opened and so far two cars have been spotted driving in the opposite direction which is extremely dangerous! One car drove just a few hundred meters before he turned around in the middel of the road. The other car drove all the way (almost 10km) in the opposite direction. Many called the police.

No wonder, many people living there have never driven on or seen a 2x2 road road before since this is the first in Nord Trøndelag.


----------



## Schweden

Þróndeimr said:


> No wonder, many people living there have never driven on or seen a 2x2 road road before since this is the first in Nord Trøndelag.


:lol:


----------



## IceCheese

Þróndeimr said:


> Guess what. The new road have just opened and so far two cars have been spotted driving in the opposite direction which is extremely dangerous! One car drove just a few hundred meters before he turned around in the middel of the road. The other car drove all the way (almost 10km) in the opposite direction. Many called the police.
> 
> No wonder, many people living there have never driven on or seen a 2x2 road road before since this is the first in Nord Trøndelag.


No spesific for Nord-Trøndelag. New E6 Vinterbro which opened earlier this fall had 4 (!!) reports of people going the wrong way into the tunnel the first couple of weeks!:bash:


----------



## Ingenioren

That's ridiculous, those are the ones who didn't notice they have to exit the road to reach E18, and then turn around in the middle of the tunnel? Goddamnit! :bash:


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Þróndeimr said:


> No wonder, many people living there have never driven on or seen a 2x2 road road before since this is the first in Nord Trøndelag.


:rofl:

seriously? How do they get their drivers license?


----------



## Jonas84

ChrisZwolle said:


> :rofl:
> 
> seriously? How do they get their drivers license?


In the mail of course. :lol:
But yeah it's really impressive that someone mange to do that. The photo below shows standard signs on highway offramps in Norway (two sets of "No entry" and a blue sign with the text "Turn around! Wrong direction"). Shouldn't be too hard to spot....


----------



## Þróndeimr

^^ yeah, thats one of the two places folloriwng the new 6km long 2x2 road where its possible to drive wrong.

but to drive wrong there you have to drive past the two first stopping signs as shown in that picture without seen them. Then you have to drive past another blue sign saying "you are driving the wrong direction, back the **** up!", then at last one last warning with another stopping sign...

Its incredible people drive that wrong. It certainly sais something about the drivers.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

^^
Maybe it's easier to go wrong from the last roundabout coming from the north (i.e. Steinkjer)?



ChrisZwolle said:


> :rofl:
> 
> 
> Þróndeimr said:
> 
> 
> 
> No wonder, many people living there have never driven on or seen a 2x2 road road before since this is the first in Nord Trøndelag.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> seriously? How do they get their drivers license?
Click to expand...

Well, I guess our friend from "Nord- Trøndelag" is exaggerating a bit...Trondheim, is only 120 km away and I guess even the eldery needs to go to university hospital there from time to time...

Regarding driving education it is actually very comprehensive in Norway, and I am pretty sure almost all new drivers have to pass Trondheim on their way to the "slippery road" training, which takes place in Orkanger south-west of Trondheim. As for the driving exam, they don't drive that far, so if there are no four-lane roads nearby they wont be tested on that. The largest weakness of the Norwegian system IMO is the fact that you have your driving licence for life, except that you have to pass some medical tests at old age. Hence, people that got their licences decades ago have to update themselves on change of regulations and new road types.

I suspect a major cause of the "driving in the wrong direction" syndrom is that prior to the opening of a dual carriageway road, one of the carriage ways are usually used for bidirectional traffic. Hence, if drivers go on "autopilot" on the opening day they might not discover the change....

Regarding that new road, it is a prime example of Norwegian road building inefficiency:

 150 million euros
 12 km (of which 5.4 is four lanes?)
 7 years of construction!
Result: A road not up to even the current Norwegian standard, pretty much the same speed limit, ending in normal 2-way / 2-lane street with 8 roundabouts straight through Steinkjer city center. There is probably some gain in safety, but very little in terms of the environment or travel time.

However, the stretch may be historic, as it is the last expansion of E6 of southern Norway without tolls for the forseeable future......


----------



## Þróndeimr

54°26′S 3°24′E;45288733 said:


> ^^
> Maybe it's easier to go wrong from the last roundabout coming from the north (i.e. Steinkjer)?


Maybe, but the entrance around that roundabout to the 2x2 have been the same for 2 years now, so i don't think thats the problem.



54°26′S 3°24′E;45288733 said:


> Well, I guess our friend from "Nord- Trøndelag" is exaggerating a bit...Trondheim, is only 120 km away and I guess even the eldery needs to go to university hospital there from time to time...


Elderly might drive to Levanger usually, if they can't treat it its bad so i guess taxis or ambulances takes them to Trondheim! Ok, i am exaggerating a bit, but i know my grandparents (over 80 and not that sharp anymore) have always chosen Steinkjer uppon Trondheim, but that they do not dare to drive there anymore. 

I had to drive them last year actually, and they had no word in describing how gigantic and scary the road was (world smallest 2x2!). And on the way back (drove across Løsberga and to the completed section) the car infront of me drove exactly that wrong direction as in the picture posted by Jonas84. Luckly there was cars coming against him on the ramp, so he stopped naturally half way on it and backed up. Since the guy that drove it was as old as my grandparents they said it would probably be the same if they drove, they have never seen the signs around the new road, and they don't notice them because they are to scared and stressed to watch the road, so basically they just drive whatever road going west, towards their home!



54°26′S 3°24′E;45288733 said:


> Regarding driving education it is actually very comprehensive in Norway, and I am pretty sure almost all new drivers have to pass Trondheim on their way to the "slippery road" training, which takes place in Orkanger south-west of Trondheim. As for the driving exam, they don't drive that far, so if there are no four-lane roads nearby they wont be tested on that. The largest weakness of the Norwegian system IMO is the fact that you have your driving licence for life, except that you have to pass some medical tests at old age. Hence, people that got their licences decades ago have to update themselves on change of regulations and new road types.


Actually, there is one in Ogndalen, Steinkjer. I took my driver licence in Trondheim, but 60/70% of those i know in Leksvik took it in Steinkjer, Verdal or Levanger. Think some of the schools go to Trondheim to test them, but not all. As you say, this "autopilot" is probably causing the problem here. Maybe a bad day to open the road? Wednesday is a "autopilot"-day for many!


----------



## Grauthue

News reader on the radio: "This is just in: A motorist has been spotted driving the wrong direction on the new road south of Steinkjer"

Elderly man in his car on the same road: "One motorist!? One!? Bloody hell! I've met about 50 cars going the wrong direction!".


(Yeah, I know the joke is old)


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

*Videos E6 /Rv 3*

Here are some videos showing the sorry state of E6 and Rv 3, the two main north-south routes in Norway, in the three municipalities of Midtre Gauldal, Rennebu, and Oppdal:
http://www.web-tv.li/Undersider/bygg_vei/bygg_vei_video.html

There is a lot of Norwegian talk, but for an illustrative example select for instance Sokndal sentrum or Stavå or Nåverdals bru on the menus to the right. It is incredible that we still have those bridges....


----------



## Gsus

Hi all! My first post in this forum

Exciting plans for the new Rv.3/Rv.25 i Løten and Elverum.

http://www.vegvesen.no/Vegprosjekter/rv3og25lotenelverum 

Latest plans in the right menu (Forprosjekt). (sorry too those who can't read norwegian)

For those who can't read norwegian, the plans include:
* 1+1 road with central divider on the Rv.3 part from the intersection with Rv.25 to Hamar, and a couple of kilometers south to the excisting motortrafikkvei to Kolomoen.
* 2+2 road with central divider (narrow motorway) on the Rv.3/Rv.25 from Løten to Elverum west.
* two-lane road (10m wide) between Elverum west and Grundset on Rv3.
* 2+2 road with central divider from Elverum west to Basthjørnet (near Elverum railway station).

Interesting things is:
* The 1+1 section on Rv.3 i Løten will be built 14 meters wide, (normal is 12,5 for this type of road) with a 2,5 meter wide central divider (normal width on narrow motorway). I really hope they build all bridges crossing the road long enough for a future addition to total four lanes. The same counts for bridges carrying Rv.3 itself, if there will be any (2 x 11m wide bridges).
* They actually plan to build four lanes into Elverum city center, which I thought was a non-do matter i Norway today (at least in a city of Elverums size, 20 000). Great tough, but in the future i guess they will have to build a new bridge spanning Glomma, and a second tunnel under the city center in direction of Trysil, so there will be four lanes all the way throug the city.
* One of the alternatives includes a roundabout with a diameter of 100-130 meters in the intersection in Elverum west. Guess this will become the largest in Norway then?


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

Welcome to the forum, Gsus!

Let's hope this project will finally be built, plans for this project has been around for quite some time now (although in typical Norwegian style they are continously modified. As a person who think Norway at some point not in too distant future should complete the close to 70 year old plan of building a motorway Oslo-Trondheim via Østerdalen, I really share your hopes regarding the width of the 1+1 part, but I am not too optimistic. In any case I am quite surprised that they actually still plan the northern part of rv 3 to Grundseth without dividers. Unfortunately, I would expect a lot fatal crashes on that road.

Regarding the roundabout, I really hope that they keep to the original plan, having the trunk road rv 3 as a through road in a grade separated intersection, alternatively, but less ideal, to have a grade separated interesection with rv 25 as the through road. Any other solution would be short sighted and cause environmental damage as the trucks of rv 3 have to slow down.


----------



## Gsus

Thanks 54°26′S 3°24′E!

I think/hope Statens vegvesen sees a little further than they used to now that they more or less gives a damn in funding from the government, and use loan from banks instead to get the roads built. But as the report says, the wide median is because they want the opportunity to put signs there, and that makes me think they maybe looks a little further than they use to. Why signs in the middle of a 2-laner?

For the 10m section, I'm also afraid there will be a lot of accidents even though the "midtfelt" has had some good effects. 

I hope that there will come a test section sometime in the future with a width of maybe 11-12 meters (1-3,5-2(3)-3,5-1), with a very wide "midtfelt" instead of barrier. The reason for a test section would be to see how Norwegian drivers with a little bit to much self confidence won't use the midtfelt for passing even with traffic coming ahead.

The roundabout is planned for a possible later rebuilding to grade-separated intersection, but it would be stupid not building the the later when they're already building an intersection. My hope is that Rv.25 will be going through, and Rv.3 off since 2/3 of the traffic from Løten goes in to Elverum.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

^^AFAIK a minority of the meeting / head on accidents are caused by passing, but due to the fact that a driver looses control of his vehicle, either due to the driver's (sickness, drugs/alcohol, sleep deprevation etc), vehicle (mechanical fault, tyres etc) or surface conditions. In most cases a physical barrier is so much better.

What vegvesenet has to say about this is in fact quite shocking:


> Beregningene tilsier at det trolig vil være samfunnsøkonomisk lønnsomt å bygge strekningen med S5-standard med fartsgrense 90 km/t istedenfor S4-standard med fartsgrense 80 km/t, forutsatt at man ikke bygger 2-planskryss ved Grundsetmoen. Dette er imidlertid er et krav til S5-veger i hht. håndbok 017, dvs. det må evt. søkes om fravik fra vegnormalene både på standardvalg og krysstype. Prosessen endte ut med en anbefaling om å legge dimensjoneringsklasse S4 til grunn for det videre planarbeidet.


In layman terms (and English):
They say that, yes, they know that a barrier will reduce accidents to such a degree that building a barrier would be better in economical terms for the society, but because this means that they have to apply for an exception to the central government they will not do it. What happened to common sense? And consiousness? 

Regarding the roundabout, it is my understanding from the "forstudie" that there is not enough room to build a grade separated intersection at the location they plan the roundabout:








At least they say it will be difficult, probably because the area around is planned for industrial development? Anyway, as you say, "rebuilding the intersection later" is a very expensive solution which the government seems to love.

It's true that the majority of the vehicles go to Elverum (i.e. east) today, but most of the heavy traffic goes northwards, and if they have to take off they have to break down a bit which will cause uneccessary pollution. The cars going towards Elverum has to break down anyway since the planned speed limit is 60 km/h there. It should further be noted that the traffic split between the two roads may change considerably in the future. First, Elverum wants rv 25 to go around the city to the north, which would add around 4000 cars to the northern arm of this interesection. However, if the Norwegian government, some time post 2013, decide that they want to do something with the excessive pollution caused by air traffic, i.e. build a proper ground transportation network in Norway, the traffic going north may increase significantly compared with the traffic going east. The reason is that most people traveling Trondheim-Oslo today is flying. However, the orientation of the grade separated intererchange is a rather minor issue IMO, and also depends on what kind of geometry they choose for the ramps. 

There is by the way also planned a roundabout where rv 25 from the west (Hamar) and rv 3 from the southwest meet. In addition, the intersection between the new and old rv 3 to the north of Elverum is planned as a T-intesection. Hence, the road planners plan no less than 3 intersections without grade separation on the new rv 3! The rv 25 going towards Elverum will as Gsus said have four lanes, but will not have a barrier fence and will have a couple of roundabouts and 60 km/h speed limit. However, this is natural as the road goes through more urban areas.


----------



## Gsus

If vegvesenet plans too relocate the E6 to Østerdalen (which I hope), I agree that Rv.3 should go strait ahead i that intersection. There are four alternatives for this intersection:
*Roundabout as the map 54°26′S 3°24′E shows at Åskroken.
*Roundabout located on Rundhaugen, where the map shows grade separation.
*Grade separated intersection with Rv.3 strait ahead.
*Grade separated intersection with Rv.25 heading strait.

The reason for the roundabout in Løten is that it's not decided how an future Rv.25 from Hamar will meet Rv.3. So that roundabout is hopefully just temporary.

The 16m road without central barrier in Elverum, will just go from one roundabout to another inside Elverum urban area. The further section out to the intersection with Rv.3 will be 20,5m with barrier in the middle.

Over to something else: I've been looking at E18 Mosseveien south of Oslo on Google Earth. The road seems too be about 13 meters wide, with three lanes from Mastemyr to Vinterbru. The road is supposed too get a central barrier soon, but when/if the Mosseveien tunnel is built, an expanding too four lanes will probably force it's way through all the way down to Vinterbru. 

The first things I'm thinking about is two alternatives: 
* Cheap alternative: Expanding the existing road to 16m 2+2 road, with a steel-barrier in the middle. All lanes open to all kind of traffic. E6 is still the main road to Oslo. Speed limit 70-80km/h. Will probably require a couple of new bridges, and the side terrain needs too be done something with.
* Expensive alternative: Expand to total six lanes, with one bus lane in each direction. Speed limit 90-100km/h. The emergency lanes between Mastemyr and Fiskevollbukta can be used as bus lanes, which will give the buses separated traffic all the way from Vinterbru to Bjørvika.

Anyone got some ideas?


----------



## Ingenioren

I don't care for Mosseveien, i would rather see them make Ryencrossing gradefree and add another lane from the Nøstvedttunnelen to Ryen instead


----------



## Gsus

Ingenioren said:


> I don't care for Mosseveien, i would rather see them make Ryencrossing gradefree and add another lane from the Nøstvedttunnelen to Ryen instead


I fully agree with you that something needs to be done at Ryen, and that E6 should get a third lane in each direction from Oppegård, but Mosseveien will still be the fastest road for everyone coming from the south. And if the tunnel from Fiskevollbukta to Bjørvika is built, this road will become more attractive for many. An good alternative route for E6 if closed is also a good arguement i think, and theres probably no buildings near Mosseveien on this section that will have to be demolished, or needing extra noise-isolation.

Does anyone know the average daily traffic on E18-Mosseveien and E6 south, or if this information is somewhere on the net?


----------



## Hansadyret

Kjello0 said:


> This mean that on new roads the goverment only spends 4-4,5 billion NOK on road building.


With roadtolls the total investments is about 10-12 billion each year.
Allmost all the increased money spent on roads the government is bragging about comes from extra roadtolls. 
It's diifficult today to get financing for a big motorway project if you expect the state to pay more than 40% of the bills, especially close to the biggest cities.
At least in the Bergen-area it looks like we can expect the constructionstart of Svegatjørn-Rådal next year after 30 years of talk. 

The NTP 2010-2019 have some big projects for the Bergen-area coming up:
-Bergensprogram continues(ringroad west and light-rail)
-Svegatjørn-Rådal motorway 
-Sotra-Bergen with a new four line bridge and motorway.
-Nyborgtunnels (four-line motorway)

When this is finished maybe be finally can make som holes in Ulriken and a new E16 to the east as well.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

Gsus said:


> Does anyone know the average daily traffic on E18-Mosseveien and E6 south, or if this information is somewhere on the net?


http://viskart.vegvesen.no/

Regarding Mosseveien, I think the main problem is the capacity of the Bjørvika tunnels. That is why the new E18 Mosseveien tunnel will not have much increased capacity compared with the current road (as far as I remember).


----------



## Gsus

54°26′S 3°24′E;45701633 said:


> http://viskart.vegvesen.no/
> 
> Regarding Mosseveien, I think the main problem is the capacity of the Bjørvika tunnels. That is why the new E18 Mosseveien tunnel will not have much increased capacity compared with the current road (as far as I remember).


Is it decided how many lanes the tunnel will get? Theres not much about the project on the web, but I saw the word "miljøtunnel" in several articles in different Oslo papers. I'm guessing bus-lanes in each direction is planned, but I can't find anything regarding one or two lanes for cars and trucks in each direction?

Let's anyway hope for a new 2+2 road on Rv.23 between Røyken and Drammen, a new road from Røyken to Asker with central-barrier, and maybe a diagonal between Rv.23's intersection with E6 and E18 to Østfold/Sweden, so this route will become even more attractive for especially trucks.


----------



## IceCheese

^^Mosseveien will get a 2+2 tunnel, where one of each are bus lanes, so in practice 1+1. Bjørvikatunnelen, with it's 3+3, won't allow a 2+2 Mosseveien go into it. It's not planed for it, and Statens Vegvesen won't allow it. 
I don't think we will see Mosseveien changed in any ways between Mastemyr and Vinterbr*o* for a loong time, if ever. It will certainly not be a motorway, and that's really fine by me. As long as it's kept as a main way from the south to Oslo vest and Oslo downtown, and not rerouted as Ingenioren suggests, I'm also fine about it. The train is the best way to commute this way, and that will be a 2+2 very soon here. The road network in the Oslo-region should be so that E18 is not an option for the passing traffic. Rv 23, E6 and E16 should all be made so people coming from the south (Sweden, Europe), would be much better off going avoiding the city when heading towards Kristiansand/Drammen/Bergen/Trondheim or wherever.


----------



## Gsus

IceCheese said:


> ^^Mosseveien will get a 2+2 tunnel, where one of each are bus lanes, so in practice 1+1. Bjørvikatunnelen, with it's 3+3, won't allow a 2+2 Mosseveien go into it. It's not planed for it, and Statens Vegvesen won't allow it.
> I don't think we will see Mosseveien changed in any ways between Mastemyr and Vinterbr*o* for a loong time, if ever. It will certainly not be a motorway, and that's really fine by me. As long as it's kept as a main way from the south to Oslo vest and Oslo downtown, and not rerouted as Ingenioren suggests, I'm also fine about it. The train is the best way to commute this way, and that will be a 2+2 very soon here. The road network in the Oslo-region should be so that E18 is not an option for the passing traffic. Rv 23, E6 and E16 should all be made so people coming from the south (Sweden, Europe), would be much better off going avoiding the city when heading towards Kristiansand/Drammen/Bergen/Trondheim or wherever.


Sound fair to keep Mosseveien as it is and use the short motorway stretch in Oppegård to make the bus-lanes longer, when an capacity increase isn't planned. Let's hope they realize that six lanes will be needed from Oppgård to Ryen in the future, combined with a new intersection at Ryen before the stretch get too cramped.

And regarding the railway. Do we dare to hope for this a faster rebuilding of Østfoldbanen? Every politician is saying nice words about trains, but nothing really happens. The NTP really just consist of the plans from the old one, and not much new. The railroads is just a complete mess, and at least the IC-network should have had completed double track yesterday too take more freight and give the passengers faster and more reliable connections.

http://www.moss-avis.no/article/20091104/NYHET/987602461

Maybe this will make a light in the end of the tunnel? The voting is over for this time, so it should be something in it, but I would'nt be too optimistic.

BTW... Do we have a railway thread for Norway her on SC?


----------



## IceCheese

Gsus said:


> Sound fair to keep Mosseveien as it is and use the short motorway stretch in Oppegård to make the bus-lanes longer, when an capacity increase isn't planned. Let's hope they realize that six lanes will be needed from Oppgård to Ryen in the future, combined with a new intersection at Ryen before the stretch get too cramped.
> 
> And regarding the railway. Do we dare to hope for this a faster rebuilding of Østfoldbanen? Every politician is saying nice words about trains, but nothing really happens. The NTP really just consist of the plans from the old one, and not much new. The railroads is just a complete mess, and at least the IC-network should have had completed double track yesterday too take more freight and give the passengers faster and more reliable connections.
> 
> http://www.moss-avis.no/article/20091104/NYHET/987602461
> 
> Maybe this will make a light in the end of the tunnel? The voting is over for this time, so it should be something in it, but I would'nt be too optimistic.
> 
> BTW... Do we have a railway thread for Norway her on SC?


There is already plans for making the short stretch of motorway north of Mastemyr into 2+2 roads whereof 1+1 bus. I think this will come at the same time as the new barriers next year.

Østfoldbanen takes time, and that's just what one have to deal with, apparantly. Oslo-Ski will hopefully be ready in 2018, and I wouldn't get my hopes up for the rest before that part is done.

And to your other question, actually we don't have a Norwegian railways thread (at least not that I know off. Don't use Railways in the world forums that much). In the N&B we have "Nordic & Baltic Infrastructure - Links & Megathread", that kind of covers everything + we made a thread called "Political majority for High Speed Trains in Norway", after Stortinget deicided on this issue earlier this summer. I guess we can rename the last one to be a bit more general about the subject.


----------



## Gsus

Hansadyret said:


> When this is finished maybe be finally can make som holes in Ulriken and a new E16 to the east as well.


Without ever have driven in Bergen myself, I actually hopes for a four-lane ringvei-øst and central-barrier/four-laner from Indre Arna to Åsane instead. I think the railway deserves it's second tube, and the time advantage on that section. And as I've understood, the Nygaardstangen intersection and Danmarksplass (may be replaced with a tunnel?) is some extreme bottlenecks that may collapse during rush-hour with the Arna tunnel coming in there too. Though it will take longer time to get around the mountain than through it for many, I also think it may be better for the air in Bergen sentrum, and make growth in the boroughs south-south/east of Bergen, when communication gets better.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

^^The people living along the current E16 may not agree with you...


----------



## Gsus

54°26′S 3°24′E;45753521 said:


> ^^The people living along the current E16 may not agree with you...


No matter what alternative gets built, there will allways be loosers (and winners). No alternative is a good alternative for everyone, and having a train connection that will be a step ahead of the road, is a good thing. Makes more people going to Bergen sentrum consider rail transport instead of the traditional "matpakkekjøring". Build a large parkinghouse at Arna station together with ringvei øst!... Thats my sugestion


----------



## Hansadyret

*Arnatunnel*

^^
I know there is talk of a "Ringvei øst" but that to will allso lead to more traffic thru Åsane and Sandviken to Bergen sentrum, and if something happens in the fløifjellet tunnels(as often happens) it will be full stop. 
With the Ulriken tunnels you allso have a good second option to sentrum from north. It should allso be possible building a huge parking-house inside the fløifjellet mountains, there is lots of space so that you can just walk out to the city without having to take your car with you driving around looking for parking space in sentrum.
I think the local trains will do fine anyways as a new tunnel will have to be paid for with a second roadtoll and population growth in Arna. The Osterøy bridge was allso planned with these tunnels in mind. 
Just a new Arnatunnel will take 20min off the traveltime to the east on E16. I'm sure they will have to build it sooner or later. 
Something will allso have to be done to the Danmarksplass crossing putting the maintraffic on E39 under the crossing leaving Danmarksplass for localtraffic, pedestrians and bybanen.


----------



## Gsus

Hansadyret said:


> ^^
> I know there is talk of a "Ringvei øst" but that to will allso lead to more traffic thru Åsane and Sandviken to Bergen sentrum, and if something happens in the fløifjellet tunnels(as often happens) it will be full stop.
> With the Ulriken tunnels you allso have a good second option to sentrum from north. It should allso be possible building a huge parking-house inside the fløifjellet mountains, there is lots of space so that you can just walk out to the city without having to take your car with you driving around looking for parking space in sentrum.
> I think the local trains will do fine anyways as a new tunnel will have to be paid for with a second roadtoll and population growth in Arna. The Osterøy bridge was allso planned with these tunnels in mind.
> Just a new Arnatunnel will take 20min off the traveltime to the east on E16. I'm sure they will have to build it sooner or later.
> Something will allso have to be done to the Danmarksplass crossing putting the maintraffic on E39 under the crossing leaving Danmarksplass for localtraffic, pedestrians and bybanen.


Where do you think the Arna tunnel should end in Bergen then? Not a good option too merge it with the Ulriken tunnel from what you're saying then?

How does Danmarksplass look like now that bybanen is soon finished?


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

*Trondheim - Sluppen*

From Bergen to Trondheim:

The by far most important - and problematic - area in the Trondheim traffic is Sluppen:


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

The picture in the previous post was shot facing south. The main arteria is the E6 coming from the southern suburbs and beyond, in Sluppen sluppen the E6 split in one arm going towards the city center (i.e. towards north / the phographer) and one arm going around the city (towards north/east at the bottom left. In addition, this is were rv 715, comes across the river on the infamous Sluppen bridge to connect to E6. Rv 715 is the main road for traffic coming the other side of the fjord (Fosen), but most of the traffic comes from the western suburbs of Trondheim (Byåsen). There is no other option for cars going east / west between this bridge and downtown several kms to the north. In addition to E6 and Rv 715, there are quite a few other roads coming to this area.

The two main problems of the area is quite evident in the picture shown above:

The Sluppen bridge (small bridge across river to the right) and sourrounding infrastructure is insufficient
For traffic coming from the bypass E6 the single lane ramp for traffic going towards the south is under capacity. 

Below is sketch of the current situation with traffic numbers from 2007 and with circles around the problematic areas. Since 2007 the population of Trondheim has increased by almost 6 %. For some reason north is to the left on this map:








The Sluppen bridge was built as a temporary bridge substutiting another temporary bridge (?) as far back as 1954, and is only 6 m wide. At the east bank there is a bend so sharp that trucks and buses needs both lanes in order to enter the bridge. At the other end there is a traffic light, and add a lot of bicycles to this mix and you have serious traffic problem:








The road system on the west bank (Byåsen) side is not ideal either, and the result is many people make huge detours today in order to avoid the worst areas and times.

Hopefully, this will change to the better in a few years, at least there are now some plans on the table for new solutions and their financing (100 % toll, of course...)

The overall planned and U/C main road system of Trondheim is shown below:








The existing bypass E6 is shown in blue. Yellow and red roads are existing or U/C. The white road is the new planned Sluppen bridge and a refurbished road at the west bank. In addition, a four lane tunnel up to the Byåsen suburbs are planned. A more detailed / bigger map can be found here:
http://www.vegvesen.no/binary?id=171301

The alternatives currently considered will be given below. Yellow is new / modified road, green colors are for bikes / pedestrians.
*Alternative 0+*








This alternative just means that there will only be built a slightly widened and realigned Sluppen bridge and building a new roundabout. No solution for connecting the new Byåsen tunnel to the system. 
*Alternative 1*








Here the new sluppen bridge is widened to four lanes, and the bridge is moved down the river a bit and a roundabout at the west bank connects the new bridge to the tunnel and the north-south road (Oslovegen) on the west bank. No lanes added to the single lane E6 ramp, but traffic from Sluppen going towards downtown are realigned.
*Alternative 2a*








Here also Oslo-vegen on the west bank will be four lanes, and through traffic on that road will be grade separated from the Sluppen bridge traffic. In addition all ramps on the E6 have at least two lanes. This is IMO the first solution that will fix most of the current problems. Notice also that the new bike route system is far better.
*Alternative 2b*








More or less the same as alternative 2a, except the through way of E6 is changed from the branch going into the city to the bypass branch.
*Alternative 3*








This alternative is fairly similar to 2a, except that the E6 goes down through a tunnel. As drawn here the E6-E6 interchange will have three levels. The alternative was suggested by the city in order to increase the area available for commercial development. In addition, this alternative keep the south/west road on the western bank (Oslovegen) as a two lane road, but keep the grade separation. In addition some ramps on the existing interestion on the bypass E6 in the NE corner of the map will be closed.

It will be exciting to see what the end result of this will be. Hopefully they will not be so short-sighted this time that they end up with alternative 0+ or 1, that wont solve anything in the long run. Also, I think there should be four lanes on the west bank road, as there is more than enough room since the houses close to that road anyway will be / has been demolished. Also other aspects of alternative 3 is suboptimal IMO. More area may be open for development, but that will also make future amendments to the system more difficult.


----------



## Kjello0

I wouldn't at all be surprised if they choose alternative 1. I would actually be by far more surprised if they actually choose alternative 2a which is by far the best solution of these. However, if Osloveien had four lanes on alternative 3 I would go for that instead.



54°26′S 3°24′E;46218417 said:


> The overall planned and U/C main road system of Trondheim is shown below:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The existing bypass E6 is shown in blue. Yellow and red roads are existing or U/C. The white road is the new planned Sluppen bridge and a refurbished road at the west bank. In addition, a four lane tunnel up to the Byåsen suburbs are planned. A more detailed / bigger map can be found here:
> http://www.vegvesen.no/binary?id=171301


When will Norwegian politicans ever show some ambitions?
A big amount of the parts U/C is already outdated. So is the existing E 6 bypass. But no plans of upgrading it or building a new bypass.

The problems in Trondheim won't be fully solved before we got this network.
A new E 6 bypass east of the city.
The current E 6 upgraded to motorway standard the whole stretch. 
Blue means 8 lane road.
Green means 6 lane road.
Red means 4 lane road.
Orange means two lane road.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

Kjello0 said:


> When will Norwegian politicans ever show some ambitions?
> A big amount of the parts U/C is already outdated. So is the existing E 6 bypass. But no plans of upgrading it or building a new bypass.


The contractor actually offered to build the harbor tunnel with four lanes at an additional cost when the revised models showed that the road will be under capacity at the opening day (surprise, surprise). The additional cost for a doubling of the tunnel was 25 %, AFAIK. However, the offer was not accepted. Building a new tunnel later will probably come at least as much as the first tunnel. 

The new traffic figures were released before the planning of the new Osloveien tunnel was completed. Hence they decided to build a parallell evacuation tunnel there. Why not double it at a minimum increase of cost?

It seems like the city and the government rather would like the jams along densely populated Elgeseter and Ila should continue indefinitely....

PS: I am not sure whether the transit traffic through Trondheim require a new outer ring road. I guess it depends a little on where the new freight terminal ends up.


----------



## Kjello0

54°26′S 3°24′E;46241355 said:


> PS: I am not sure whether the transit traffic through Trondheim require a new outer ring road. I guess it depends a little on where the new freight terminal ends up.


Traffic going all the way from Sandmoen and to Ranheim is estimated to be around 4000. But my proposal don't only serve through traffic. It also serve those who travel most of the route. Like Sandmoen - Lade area (2000) or Ranheim - Tiller/Heimdal area (3000). And then we are up in 9000. In adition we got traffic to and from the Stubban/Risvollan area, which is kind of hard to estimate. So the total traffic served by a such bypass will probably be atleast 10 000 AADT. 

And then we must not forget that Trondheim is expected to grow 35% the next 20 years. And reach 230 000 inhabitants between 2030 and 2035 some time. And we all know that it probably will grow even more than that. When has SSB ever been right? Even just a few years ago Trondheim was estimated to reach 170 000 inhabitants in 2015, which was reached this year. Meaning the SSB was off by six years. And the last six years Trondheim has grown with 20 000. Meaning Trondheim will be around 190 000 when we reach 2015 and was supposed to reach 170 000. 
So we gotta plan ahead. And the areas that probably will grow the most the next 20 years is the areas between my proposed bypass and the current E 6.
And if we grow more than SSB expect there is no way we can live without a second bypass. It was seen on as needed back in the 80's, so why shouldn't it be needed now?


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

OK, you have me convinced. The problem is that it will take a bit more to convince the current Norwegian political estblishment in general and Rita the major in particular....

And in the mean time, the areas formerly set aside for the outer road are filling up....

BTW, where the heck did Google get those crappy aerials of Trondheim from. Apparantly the google development unit that used to be in Trondheim until this year did not pay much attention to their own city....


----------



## Þróndeimr

54°26′S 3°24′E;46263465 said:


> BTW, where the heck did Google get those crappy aerials of Trondheim from. Apparantly the google development unit that used to be in Trondheim until this year did not pay much attention to their own city....


use finn.no instead

google make Norway look horrible!


----------



## Kjello0

E 39 Vinjefjorden will open for regular traffic November 30. When opened 10,5 km out of 14,5 km is finished and asphalted. The last 4 km will be finished in june or july. Hopefully before the summer vacation start. Wonder if there will be anyone from the goverment at the official opening. And if so I wonder if they dare to claim that this stretch is a result of the current goverments "roadlift". Especially since every part of that road was financed in advance by the two counties involved.


----------



## metasmurf

A nice picture from E6 in Finnmark (not my picture)


----------



## Ingenioren

I bet Kleppa will claim it was only possible with their improving the local economy, thus claiming she did a good job last term... 

Very good standard on E6 in that picture there, i have driven this road - and it's far from that standard in most places... 

E18 in Bjørvika, will be sad to lose this "driving into the skyline" feeling when the tunnel is finished....


----------



## metasmurf

Maybe this is more the standard you had in mind? Another picture from E6 in Finnmark










Sorry for the huge image, but I don't know how to resize


----------



## Gsus

metasmurf said:


> Maybe this is more the standard you had in mind? Another picture from E6 in Finnmark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry for the huge image, but I don't know how to resize


All roads in Norway with a yellow stripe, and less than 10000 cars passing a day can be counted as "good standard", according to the politicians. :nuts:


----------



## ElviS77

KiwiRob said:


> Have you been to Croatia recently, over the past 10 years they have built a motorway network which must be one of the best I've ever driven on, when finished it will connect all the major cities and towns in Croatia. I believe it's now about 75& complete with only a few links to the south of Split, the link from Reijka South and the connection to Pula. All the missing links are currently under construction. This network is partially funded by tolls and by govt investment. Once the motorway network is complete then the next major project will be the railways.


I'm back. And even though this was an old post by myself, I felt like making a short comment: This is precisely what I'm saying. Countries might fund and do fund roads better than we do, but, generally speaking, the real massive projects of today are (at least partialy) toll road ones. I'm certainly not suggesting this to be the greatest idea in human excistense, I'm merely pointing it out as a fact of life.


----------



## ElviS77

54°26′S 3°24′E;46218417 said:


> The picture in the previous post was shot facing south. The main arteria is the E6 coming from the southern suburbs and beyond, in Sluppen sluppen the E6 split in one arm going towards the city center (i.e. towards north / the phographer) and one arm going around the city (towards north/east at the bottom left. In addition, this is were rv 715, comes across the river on the infamous Sluppen bridge to connect to E6. Rv 715 is the main road for traffic coming the other side of the fjord (Fosen), but most of the traffic comes from the western suburbs of Trondheim (Byåsen). There is no other option for cars going east / west between this bridge and downtown several kms to the north. In addition to E6 and Rv 715, there are quite a few other roads coming to this area.
> 
> The two main problems of the area is quite evident in the picture shown above:
> 
> The Sluppen bridge (small bridge across river to the right) and sourrounding infrastructure is insufficient
> For traffic coming from the bypass E6 the single lane ramp for traffic going towards the south is under capacity.
> 
> Below is sketch of the current situation with traffic numbers from 2007 and with circles around the problematic areas. Since 2007 the population of Trondheim has increased by almost 6 %. For some reason north is to the left on this map:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Sluppen bridge was built as a temporary bridge substutiting another temporary bridge (?) as far back as 1954, and is only 6 m wide. At the east bank there is a bend so sharp that trucks and buses needs both lanes in order to enter the bridge. At the other end there is a traffic light, and add a lot of bicycles to this mix and you have serious traffic problem:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The road system on the west bank (Byåsen) side is not ideal either, and the result is many people make huge detours today in order to avoid the worst areas and times.
> 
> Hopefully, this will change to the better in a few years, at least there are now some plans on the table for new solutions and their financing (100 % toll, of course...)
> 
> The overall planned and U/C main road system of Trondheim is shown below:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The existing bypass E6 is shown in blue. Yellow and red roads are existing or U/C. The white road is the new planned Sluppen bridge and a refurbished road at the west bank. In addition, a four lane tunnel up to the Byåsen suburbs are planned. A more detailed / bigger map can be found here:
> http://www.vegvesen.no/binary?id=171301
> 
> The alternatives currently considered will be given below. Yellow is new / modified road, green colors are for bikes / pedestrians.
> *Alternative 0+*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This alternative just means that there will only be built a slightly widened and realigned Sluppen bridge and building a new roundabout. No solution for connecting the new Byåsen tunnel to the system.
> *Alternative 1*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here the new sluppen bridge is widened to four lanes, and the bridge is moved down the river a bit and a roundabout at the west bank connects the new bridge to the tunnel and the north-south road (Oslovegen) on the west bank. No lanes added to the single lane E6 ramp, but traffic from Sluppen going towards downtown are realigned.
> *Alternative 2a*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here also Oslo-vegen on the west bank will be four lanes, and through traffic on that road will be grade separated from the Sluppen bridge traffic. In addition all ramps on the E6 have at least two lanes. This is IMO the first solution that will fix most of the current problems. Notice also that the new bike route system is far better.
> *Alternative 2b*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More or less the same as alternative 2a, except the through way of E6 is changed from the branch going into the city to the bypass branch.
> *Alternative 3*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This alternative is fairly similar to 2a, except that the E6 goes down through a tunnel. As drawn here the E6-E6 interchange will have three levels. The alternative was suggested by the city in order to increase the area available for commercial development. In addition, this alternative keep the south/west road on the western bank (Oslovegen) as a two lane road, but keep the grade separation. In addition some ramps on the existing interestion on the bypass E6 in the NE corner of the map will be closed.
> 
> It will be exciting to see what the end result of this will be. Hopefully they will not be so short-sighted this time that they end up with alternative 0+ or 1, that wont solve anything in the long run. Also, I think there should be four lanes on the west bank road, as there is more than enough room since the houses close to that road anyway will be / has been demolished. Also other aspects of alternative 3 is suboptimal IMO. More area may be open for development, but that will also make future amendments to the system more difficult.





Why aren't alternatives 2b and 3 combined with a 4-lane Oslovei? I really believe a branching of the city centre link makes sense, particularly given the fact that one is seeking a diversion of car traffic from the city centre (bus lanes etc). In such a scenario, 4 lanes both east and west of the centre would make perfect sense...


----------



## Ingenioren

Afternoon trafic on Ring3, Økern:


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Is that a motorway? It looks very substandard, sidewalks, no real exit ramps and even a bus stop if I see it right.


----------



## Ingenioren

No, it's not a motorway at all. It's speedlimit 60 km/h, the road is temporary displaced because there is exit of a new tunnel being blasted to the right of the road. It's common for these yellow-signed urban expressways (70 or 80 km/h limit) to have bus-stops and sidewalks, altough they are gradually being removed to improve trafic-flow and safety.


----------



## KiwiRob

Anyone know why a 4 lane highway about 2-3 km long was built in the middle of nowhere about 20km north of Oppdal on the E6, it came as quite a surprise, we normally go to Trondheim via the coastal route so haven't been this way for a couple of years.


----------



## Þróndeimr

KiwiRob said:


> Anyone know why a 4 lane highway about 2-3 km long was built in the middle of nowhere about 20km north of Oppdal on the E6, it came as quite a surprise, we normally go to Trondheim via the coastal route so haven't been this way for a couple of years.


2-3km? :nuts:

The expansion up/down the quite steep and difficult section just south of Ulsberg, between Kløftbrua and Farleghetsbrua to be exact. Been completed these days, should be about 650m long, just up that hill there.

Reason? It has long been a very difficult part for heavier vehicles. ( example 1, example 2, example 3, example 4)

Its the same as the 2x1-road just south of Soknedal which was build a few years ago. There are also much work been done just north of Ulsberg. They have been cutting down turn by turn for over 10 years.


----------



## KiwiRob

I must admit I was traveling at excessive speed when I blasted through the area so probably thought it was longer than it really was. Ah well I guess it's a start. Maybe next time I will go through slower and admire the only 4 lane highway close to my town.


----------



## Þróndeimr

KiwiRob said:


> I must admit I was traveling at excessive speed when I blasted through the area so probably thought it was longer than it really was. Ah well I guess it's a start. Maybe next time I will go through slower and admire the only 4 lane highway close to my town.


And are you sure it was 2x2?

Last time i drove it (still U/C a month ago) it was just a 2x1 road. 2 lanes up, 1 down.


----------



## KiwiRob

It's looked like it was 2x2 with a median barrier between them.


----------



## Kjello0

Becouse of this slide









In this hill









the opening for regular traffic on E 39 Vinjefjorden is postponed with atleast two weeks.


----------



## Gsus

Does anyone know if E6 from Hvam(?) too Kløfta used to be a six-laner?

When looking at Google Earth there is a changing of pictures at Lindeberg, where the northern picture is showing a six-laner which changes to a four-laner with wide shoulders, in the picture from 2006. I have heard that plans were to expand E6 too six lanes during the Gardermoen building, but it was only prtly finished up to Hvam, AFAIK.

From what I see on the picture it also might be that the shoulder is used as a lane during asphalting (The inner lanes has a lighter color than the outer).


----------



## NorthStar77

I was driving from my hometown Kristiansand back to Oslo last evening, for the first time on the new motorway between Kristiansand and Grimstad. The whole trip took only 3h 40min, and I didn't stay much above the speedlimit. Despite our poor infrastructure, E18 between Kristiansand and Oslo has slowly, bit by bit, improved over the 10 years I've been living in Oslo. I think those 320 kilometers took about 45 minutes longer back then. Plus all the congestions in weekends, one could often use 6 hours. But now that the biggest bottlenecks are fixed(especially Drammen!), that is not such a big problem either.


----------



## Neksio

ChrisZwolle said:


> http://nexus.fizyka.amu.edu.pl/digital/2007-07..Norwegia/
> 
> Very cool photo's done by some Polish guy, so all credits go to him.
> (taken from the Polish subforum on SSC).


new links (old no longer works..): 
All photos http://nexus.hell.pl/digital/2007/2007-07.Norwegia/
Best (imho) photos http://nexus.hell.pl/digital/2007/2007-07..Norwegia/

(I'm still missing Norway..)


map  Google Maps


----------



## Pannyers

^^ Very nice pictures!!! 

I hope to go to Norway next year again.
My last visit was in 2009.
I'v also drove many tunnels, bridges and nice roads.


----------



## Melankolic

54°26′S 3°24′E;54587397 said:


> Coastal routes between Trondheim and Stavanger (no railway!):


Railway between Bergen and Stavanger? :nuts: It`s possible but the trip takes 15 hours


----------



## j0nas

KiwiRob said:


> But the last election the conservatives had an infrastructure agenda, but for god only knows what reason (rather like the US voting in Bush for his second term) the Norwegian people decided to keep the same useless Stoltenberg socialist govt, another 4 years of mediocre, ineffective govt.


Calling Stoltenberg a socialist is an insult to socialism.


----------



## KiwiRob

Socialism is an insult to intelligent people who don't need to be treated like children or sheep, if people in this country had a spine to stand up for the crap the current govt throws at us I'm sure we would have the infrastructure that a country with the level of wealth Norway has deserves.

For example I drove from Stavanger to Molde last May, the weather was good, no rain or snow, very little traffic yet it took me 13 hours to drive 750 km, only 2 ferry crossings, I was not a happy bunny, in any other developed country a trip of that distance would take somewhere between 5 - 8 hours.


----------



## j0nas

What crap is the government throwing at you? Ap has never been more right wing than they are now.
And how will things be better under Høyre/Frp/Krf?

And [email protected] a trip through western norway with "any other developed country"


----------



## Ingenioren

I wonder what route you chose Stavanger - Molde that only had 2 ferry crossings, sounds like you did a large detour there.


----------



## KiwiRob

I went inland, the ferry crossing were Stavanger to Haugesund and Åfarnes to Sølsnes, it's much quicker going inland across the mountains to Lilliehamer and up the E8 to Dombås than the coast route via Bergen and Ålesund.

If you consider the current govt right leaning jonas then you have your head up your arse, in any other western country this govt wouldn't even be close to centre left, things are pretty bad right now I fail see how a more business friendly, happy to invest in infrastructure and limit immigration Høyre/Frp govt could be any worse.


----------



## j0nas

They're not right leaning compared to Frp, but compared to what they could've been and compared to what Ap used to be when it was still a labor party, they are.

Who privatised Statoil? Stoltenberg. And we could go on.

The last thing they said was that they didnt want to finance Store norske leksikon because it didnt felt that it was the governments responsibility to finance things like that. Not exactly 'socialist'.

But this discussion dont belong in this thread anyway, sorry.


----------



## Þróndeimr

KiwiRob said:


> I went inland, the ferry crossing were Stavanger to Haugesund and Åfarnes to Sølsnes, it's much quicker going inland across the mountains to Lilliehamer and up the E8 to Dombås than the coast route via Bergen and Ålesund.


Drove from Haugesund to Leksvik in april last year, same rout as you more or less (Haugesund-Odda-Hardangervidda-Gol-Fagernes-Dokka-Lillehammer-E6 to Trondheim, ferry Flakk-Rørvik to Leksvik). That was 930km. Took me just about 11 hours of very slow driving as i was driving in the end of Easter (Hardangervidda-Geilo-Gol in Easter is hno: ), also i did do a 30min break in Fagernes, and a almost 30min stop north of Lillehammer due to a collision.

You must have been driving insanely slow, esp. when having more than 100km shorter rout?


----------



## KiwiRob

No not slow, I pretty much stuck to the speed limit the whole way, at the point I was only 1 speeding ticket away from saying bye bye to my license, my 13 hours included 2 ferry crossings, 1 petrol stop, and 2 half hours stops for lunch and dinner, total time behind the wheel was about 10 hours, still far to long for the distance driven.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

^^ Maybe we should revive the Bergen-Trondheim highway discussion
( http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=443589&page=41 ). Anyways, KiwiBob, that road stretch close to Oppdal you mentioned earlier is 2+1 (although they have not cared about removing the old paint, so the markings on the single lane side is confusing)



ChrisZwolle said:


> I was talking about daily trips. Most people don't drive from Oslo to Trondheim every day. How many people are we talking about in absolute numbers?


More than 1.6 M per year go by air, i.e. total traffic is currently around 1.6/.4=4 M per year if you sum all forms of transportation, or roughly 11 000 pax per day. Of course, this does not translate to 11 000 AADT if all went by road, but on the other hand, the traffic is growing insanely, by more than a factor 5.2 during the last 30 years. In addition, of course, since this is only the long distance traffic, the totalthe traffic is approaching this level only on the lonliest stretches; most places the total traffic is significantly higher.


Melankolic said:


> Railway between Bergen and Stavanger? :nuts: It`s possible but the trip takes 15 hours


Perhaps the 1 % or so had interrail passes?


j0nas said:


> What crap is the government throwing at you? Ap has never been more right wing than they are now.


Not true, they were more "right wing" during Stoltenberg I (but "right wing" is hardly an appropriate word)


j0nas said:


> And how will things be better under Høyre/Frp/Krf?


Less taxes, bureaucracy, and less expensive and failed political correctness => more value for money


j0nas said:


> And [email protected] a trip through western norway with "any other developed country"


Why should we not?


j0nas said:


> They're not right leaning compared to Frp, but compared to what they could've been and compared to what Ap used to be when it was still a labor party, they are.
> 
> Who privatised Statoil? Stoltenberg. And we could go on.


I don't know any people that want to return to Gerhardsen.....


j0nas said:


> The last thing they said was that they didnt want to finance Store norske leksikon because it didnt felt that it was the governments responsibility to finance things like that. Not exactly 'socialist'.
> 
> But this discussion dont belong in this thread anyway, sorry.


Certainly the store norske does not have anything to do with neither socialism nor roads, but the inability to deliver economic sustainable development projects certainly has a lot to do with the current government. Equating 1 kr to social benefits with 1 kr to investments in education or infrastructure is simply insane.


----------



## KiwiRob

54°26′S 3°24′E;55179831 said:


> Less taxes, bureaucracy, and less expensive and failed political correctness => more value for money


Three cheers to that statement, high taxation hasn't gotten Norway very far and has just led to a class of people who don't want to work and another class of people who ride the public service gravy train leaving the rest of us to pick up the tab.


----------



## ElviS77

KiwiRob said:


> Three cheers to that statement, high taxation hasn't gotten Norway very far and has just led to a class of people who don't want to work and another class of people who ride the public service gravy train leaving the rest of us to pick up the tab.


I agree. Continuously being in the top-three list over the world's best countries to live in is hopeless. Everything has been done wrong for decades, and socialists, immigrants and lazy people are, of course, to blame...

(Since I know even overt irony tends to be ignored: The previous statement was just that. Irony, that is...)

Anyways, this is NOT a political forum, and even though I've touched on the subjects a couple of years ago, it's certainly worth avoiding. Particularly if one only produces abuse that has nothing to do with our highways.

The reality is that Norwegian politics is consensus-obsessed. Sure, there are certain differences between a "conservative" and a "labour" government, but when it comes to bigger issues and the budget as a whole, the differences are minute compared to almost anywhere else. Nowhere has that been truer than when it comes to road infrastructure the past 45 years: Back in the early 60s, the Labour government intruduced a massive roadbuilding plan, but when the centre-right coalition defeated them in the 1965 general election, this plan was shelved, and no government has attempted anything remotely similar ever since.

I believe there are several reasons for this, going beyond the obvious power bias towards local politics - all Norwegian roads were basically local or county roads until the "stamvei" concept appeared. First, we have a highly developed air travel network and ships have always filled Norwegians with a sense of pride. Second, our starting point was worse than in most Western European countries. Third, projects actually constructed have commonly been seriously underdimensioned. Forth, the way projects have been financed has forced a policy of patching up things here and there, not systematic development of key routes.


----------



## ElviS77

54°26′S 3°24′E;55179831 said:


> ^^ Maybe we should revive the Bergen-Trondheim highway discussion.


No, I don't think we should...:nuts:



54°26′S 3°24′E;55179831 said:


> I don't know any people that want to return to Gerhardsen......


No, but as most countries found out a year ago, a certain degree of political control perhaps wasn't such a bat thing after all... That said, in terms of public infrastructure spending, a centralised social democracy like that of the 50s would have been in a far better position to deal with the major systemic upgrades both the road and rail network require.



54°26′S 3°24′E;55179831 said:


> Equating 1 kr to social benefits with 1 kr to investments in education or infrastructure is simply insane.


No doubt. But that's the kind of thinking you get with New Public Management. And, as stated way earlier, I don't see an easy way out of this. Best-case scenario is PPP and other toll road systems, I fear.


----------



## KiwiRob

ElviS77 said:


> I agree. Continuously being in the top-three list over the world's best countries to live in is hopeless. Everything has been done wrong for decades, and socialists, immigrants and lazy people are, of course, to blame...
> 
> (Since I know even overt irony tends to be ignored: The previous statement was just that. Irony, that is...)


Even thought you were being ironic you are correct, lazy people and those riding the public service and social welfare gravy train can and do have a great life in Norway, that is one of the big problems with the system in Norway, it is very easy to have a fantastic life without really having to work very hard to get it.

This recent disaster and the closure of airports all over the country has really showen how crap the road network is in Norway, now if Norway had an upgraded highway network and more efficient rail links this current problem wouldn't be as big a pain in the arse as it is now. Hopefully the govt will learn a lesson from this and start to invest in improvements.


----------



## ElviS77

KiwiRob said:


> Even thought you were being ironic you are correct, lazy people and those riding the public service and social welfare gravy train can and do have a great life in Norway, that is one of the big problems with the system in Norway, it is very easy to have a fantastic life without really having to work very hard to get it.


You know what irony means, yes..? 

My point is this, though: For more reasons than I care to mention, I don't intend to make this into a political debate, at least not one about non-road-related topics. Neither should you. Not here.


----------



## ElviS77

KiwiRob said:


> This recent disaster and the closure of airports all over the country has really showen how crap the road network is in Norway, now if Norway had an upgraded highway network and more efficient rail links this current problem wouldn't be as big a pain in the arse as it is now. Hopefully the govt will learn a lesson from this and start to invest in improvements.


Well, serious problems have occured in all countries affected by the ash, which is to be expected. You don't prepare for natural disasters that ground all flights overnight, that would require an enourmous over-capacity available at any given time anywhere. That's simply not a viable option. 

Sure, Norway, with considerable travel distances and a lot of air travel, suffer more domestically than i.e. the Netherlands, but blaming bad roads? Hundreds of kms to the nearest hospital would have taken hours, even if Northern Norway had been cris-crossed by Autobahns. I'm all in favour of a better Norwegian road network, but that won't solve everything...


----------



## KiwiRob

Ah well I'm n a road trip right now, I looked like I couldn't get to Riga on Monday (turned out to be correct) so I drove to Stockholm and caught the ferry, now I'm sitting in Warsaw contemplating a bloodly long drive to Milano for a meeting on Friday since I'm not going to be able to get back to Molde to catch my Friday flights. So far I've driven about 1900km with another 4000 or so to go before I get home which should be Sunday night or Monday morning. 

Looking forward to the Autobahn today will have to see if I can have a go at a top speed run in my Mini. Just have to remember that unless you drive a Bugatti there is always someone faster than you.

I am enjoying being able to drive at a decent 130 - 150kph, certainly makes travel by car a lot more fun, I am not looking forward to driving from Oslo to Molde.


----------



## katia72

KiwiRob said:


> Ah well I'm n a road trip right now, I looked like I couldn't get to Riga on Monday (turned out to be correct) so I drove to Stockholm and caught the ferry, now I'm sitting in Warsaw contemplating a bloodly long drive to Milano for a meeting on Friday since I'm not going to be able to get back to Molde to catch my Friday flights. So far I've driven about 1900km with another 4000 or so to go before I get home which should be Sunday night or Monday morning.
> 
> Looking forward to the Autobahn today will have to see if I can have a go at a top speed run in my Mini. Just have to remember that unless you drive a Bugatti there is always someone faster than you.
> 
> I am enjoying being able to drive at a decent 130 - 150kph, certainly makes travel by car a lot more fun, I am not looking forward to driving from Oslo to Molde.


*This sounds like fun.
Can you tell me which way you take from Warsaw to Milan and how is the road construction in Poland.
I'll drive to the South Poland in the summer looking forward very much.

Bon voyage to You *


----------



## KiwiRob

I drove the E30 from Warsaw to Germany, the first part was nasty two lane highway full of trucks and suicidal poles jumping in and out of the traffic to pass, then we hit the new motorway section 130kph, goes on for a hell of a long way, excellent road, really nice, it ends about 50km from the border, the missing section to Germany is under construction. I was advised not to drive south to Italy, the roads are pretty bad and there are little or no motorway, Polish A roads are crowded with trucks, not fun to drive at all.

Driving the autobahn was great fun, Germans have great motorway etiquette, I was driving around 130-140kph any faster and the Mini used way to much diesel.


----------



## katia72

KiwiRob said:


> I drove the E30 from Warsaw to Germany, the first part was nasty two lane highway full of trucks and suicidal poles jumping in and out of the traffic to pass, then we hit the new motorway section 130kph, goes on for a hell of a long way, excellent road, really nice, it ends about 50km from the border, the missing section to Germany is under construction. I was advised not to drive south to Italy, the roads are pretty bad and there are little or no motorway, Polish A roads are crowded with trucks, not fun to drive at all.
> 
> Driving the autobahn was great fun, Germans have great motorway etiquette, I was driving around 130-140kph any faster and the Mini used way to much diesel.



Thanks a lot..


----------



## JeremyCastle

Does anyone on this thread know of any good websites that explain about the widening of the E6 from Gardermoen to Hamar? The language doesn't matter.


----------



## Grauthue

JeremyCastle said:


> Does anyone on this thread know of any good websites that explain about the widening of the E6 from Gardermoen to Hamar? The language doesn't matter.


Don't know if it's good, but here is the official project website from the Norwegian road authorities (in norwegian).


----------



## KiwiRob

JeremyCastle said:


> Does anyone on this thread know of any good websites that explain about the widening of the E6 from Gardermoen to Hamar? The language doesn't matter.


I drove through it yesterday, it's quite impressive for a Norwegian roading project. Hopefully the next stage is Hamar to Lilliehamar, about 10-15km north of Lilliehamar near Otta it looks like another roading project is being undertaken, hopefully they will be double laning it or at least adding some passing lanes.


----------



## Grauthue

KiwiRob said:


> I drove through it yesterday, it's quite impressive for a Norwegian roading project. Hopefully the next stage is Hamar to Lilliehamar, about 10-15km north of Lilliehamar near Otta it looks like another roading project is being undertaken, hopefully they will be double laning it or at least adding some passing lanes.


The plan is to build 4 lanes up to Øyer, north of Lillehammer. Further up they are also going to build a new road, but it will be 2 lanes with passing lanes here and there.

Sensible enough. The AADT is less than 6000 at Otta.

With the current pace they'll probably be finished by the year 2350 or something

BTW: Otta is 113,8 km north of Lillehammer


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

^^ There is afaik no concrete motorway funding in place north of Kolomoen (which is at the Rv 3 / E6 junction). Both Kolomoen - Lillehammer as well as Kolomoen-Trondheim (rv 3 / E6) should IMO become motorway ASAP, but we have to wait at least 3 1 /2 years before even thinking about that again...


----------



## IceCheese

^^Well, Kolomoen - Biri is already mentioned in NTP, so probably it's just a matter of time till the local politicans are forced to accept yet another toll booth.


----------



## KiwiRob

I would consider the E6 as a route of national importance it should not be tolled on any part of it, it should be 4 lane highway from Oslo to Trondheim.


----------



## Ingenioren

Last time i checked it wasn't certain that any part north of Mjøsbridge would be motorway standard, maybe it will just be widened to narrow 4 laner with some 2 lane parts in between (Like "Nullvisjonsvegen" past Hunderfossen.)

About the Tretten - Øyer part of E6 that is starting construction now, it will also follow this formula:

"Trafikkmengden på strekningen E6 Øyer-Tretten tilsier at tunnelen i
første omgang bygges med ett løp. Øyertunnelens andre løp skal være ferdig
bygd når den gjennomsnittlige døgntrafikken passerer 8 000 kjøretøy. Ifølge
dagens prognoser kommer trafikken til å komme opp i 8000 per døgn 13-14
år etter åpningen av den nye Øyertunnelen."


----------



## IceCheese

Ingenioren said:


> Last time i checked it wasn't certain that any part north of Mjøsbridge would be motorway standard, maybe it will just be widened to narrow 4 laner with some 2 lane parts in between (Like "Nullvisjonsvegen" past Hunderfossen.)
> 
> About the Tretten - Øyer part of E6 that is starting construction now, it will also follow this formula:
> 
> "Trafikkmengden på strekningen E6 Øyer-Tretten tilsier at tunnelen i
> første omgang bygges med ett løp. Øyertunnelens andre løp skal være ferdig
> bygd når den gjennomsnittlige døgntrafikken passerer 8 000 kjøretøy. Ifølge
> dagens prognoser kommer trafikken til å komme opp i 8000 per døgn 13-14
> år etter åpningen av den nye Øyertunnelen."


Luckily, Statens Vegvesen has so good tools for traffic projections!:nuts:


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

^^ As if they actually (by magic) intend to build that second tunnel when traffic passes 8000. There are currently quite a few tunnels with more than 8000 AADT. Trondheim-Stjørdal had 15 000 last time I checked with three tunnels (the longest one more than 4 km), and there is not even talk in the public about dualing The Gudbrandsdal people should hope (or rather vote) for a change of government...


----------



## Hansadyret

KiwiRob said:


> I would consider the E6 as a route of national importance it should not be tolled on any part of it, it should be 4 lane highway from Oslo to Trondheim.


At least to Dombås where the road parts to Sunnmøre and Trondheim should be possible sometime. Over Dovre i don't think it's necessary(maybe it's enough with 2+1), 4 lanes again when you come down from Dovre nearing Trondheim and all the way to Steinkjer.

I don't think its a big problem with a little bit of roadtolls on E6. It's a cheap road to drive compared to many others an especially E39.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

KiwiRob said:


> I would consider the E6 as a route of national importance it should not be tolled on any part of it, it should be 4 lane highway from Oslo to Trondheim.


I support this, when E6 goes through Østerdalen :lol:


Hansadyret said:


> At least to Dombås where the road parts to Sunnmøre and Trondheim should be possible sometime. Over Dovre i don't think it's necessary(maybe it's enough with 2+1), 4 lanes again when you come down from Dovre nearing Trondheim and all the way to Steinkjer.


I agree. As much as the Gudbrandsdalen people are branding the E6 as the "national highway of Norway", and even the main Oslo-Trondheim highway, at Dombås the road is more of a regional road mainly serving the valley itself and Møre og Romsdal between Molde and Ålesund. I think it is probably a good idea to expand the Gudbrandsdal road to a full motorway at some point, but it will be quite expensive, and meet a lot of opposition from environmentalists. There are quite a few roads I would like to see expanded first, including (Oslo-)Kolomoen-Elverum-Trondheim-Steinkjer, Kristiansand-Vestfold(-Oslo), Kolomoen-Lillehammer, Drammen-Haukeli-Bergen, and probably even Stavanger-Bergen. 

Not enough people realize that Elverum and Lillehammer are equally close to Trøndelag, and building a motorway through Østerdalen can be done at a fraction of the cost and environmental contriversy compared to Gudbrandsdalen / Dovrefjell.


> I don't think its a big problem with a little bit of roadtolls on E6. It's a cheap road to drive compared to many others an especially E39.


The Trondheim-Oslo drive (which usually don't include Gudbrandsdalen) is set to be quite expensive, with tolls at Gardermoen-Kolomoen, Løten-Elverum, and the whole E6 in Trøndelag until Åsen north of Stjørdal if all proposals are approved. Personally I can afford it, but the reliance on toll financing is a big problem in Norway because:

Tolls are generating a huge amount of opposition, and this it is very difficult to get the required progress in infrastructure development.
Tolls are an inefficient way of raising money
Tolls are unfair and unsocial, because it is often quite random who is affected. (which is partly why they are so unpopular). Areas with the poorest infrastructure is further punished by having to pay the steepest tolls.
National infrastructure planning should not be subject to local whims
Tolls sometimes lead to undesirable traffic patterns (the new toll system in Trondheim is a prime example)


----------



## Hansadyret

54°26′S 3°24′E;56153557 said:


> Not enough people realize that Elverum and Lillehammer are equally close to Trøndelag, and building a motorway through Østerdalen can be done at a fraction of the cost and environmental contriversy compared to Gudbrandsdalen / Dovrefjell.


What are the trafficnumbers if you compare the two valleys? Gudbrandsdalen also serves the north-west and west going north(Dovre) but i guess østerdalen gives a more stable winteroption.


----------



## Kjello0

In the valley it self there is much higher traffic through Gudbrandsdalen compared to Østerdalen. The main reason for this is that Gudbrandsdalen is much more populated than Østerdalen. While Gudbrandsdalen got over 70 000 inhabitans, Østerdalen only got 22 000 inhabitans. Gudbrandsdalen also got much more turists and hut people than Østerdalen does. 

So even if we build a motorway up Østerdalen all the way to Trondheim, we still need a motorway up Gudbrandsdalen to Otta. On the other hand, if we build a motorway up Gudbrandsdalen all the way to Trondheim, we probably wouldn't need a motorway longer than to Rena in Østerdalen. Perhaps not even that far.

So if we want the cheapest option for a motorway between Oslo and Trondheim, Gudbrandsdalen will be choosen.

Personally I want a reorganisation of the road network in Norway.
We should stop including European Routes in our road network. All national roads should have an national number. 
National roads should be devided into three different classes.

National routes, Rv 1-9
These stretches should go between the regions of Norway.

Regional routes, Rv 10-99
All municipality centers, and villages with at least 1500 inhabitans should be connected by either a regional or national route.

Local routes, Rv 100-999
Simply the rest of the network. All villages should be connected by a national road of some kind.

European Stretches should come on top of the national network, but only on national or regional routes. At the same time they should only be signposted on national and regional routes. So on Rv 33 you would see signs like "(1)(E6) Oslo", while on Rv 180 you would only see "(1) Oslo"

The 9 national routes should be these stretches.
I can't see any way important routes or destinations not represented here.

Riksvei 1 Svinesund - Trondheim (White)
Riksvei 2 Lørenskog - Ålesund (Light blue)
Riksvei 3 Sandvika - Florø (Red)
Riksvei 4 Kongsvinger - Bergen (Pink)
Riksvei 5 Ørje - Stavanger (Black)
Riksvei 6 Sandvika - Kristiansand (Green)
Riksvei 7 Kritstiansand - Bergen (White)
Riksvei 8 Bergen - Storlien (Black)
Riksvei 9 Trondheim - Kirkenes (Red)









Within 2040 they should all have modern roads with preferably at least a 11,5 meter wide expressway. But a 9,5 meter wide regular road signposted with 90 km/h is accepted on certain stretches, especially on Riksvei 9 Trondheim - Kirkenes. They should of course also be ferry free.

As you might understand, I also want a new speed limit system. Today we got 8 speed limits from 30 km/h to 100 km/h. We should reduce this number to 6 speed limits from 30 km/h to 130 km/h in 20 km/h steps.

30 km/h, as today the speed limit in residential areas and streets.
50 km/h, as today the general speed limit within built up areas.
70 km/h, all rural roads that don't qualify for higher speed limits. Will be the new general speed limit on rural roads.
90 km/h, high quality rural roads. Criterias regarding curves, number of exits and road width. No roads more narrow than 7,5 meters should be allowed. So called "City motorways" will also have this speed limit. This is roads like Ring 3 in Oslo, the current E6 through Trondheim or E39 in Bergen.
110 km/h, expressways, minimum 11,5 meters. 
130 km/h, rural motorways. Norway should stop using the term "narrow motorways". All motorways should be minimum 24 meters wide. Lanes 3,75 meters, outer shoulders 3 meters, inner shoulders 1 meter and a concrete barrier of 1 meter. The minimum width of 24 meters also counts for city motorways.

The last two is summer speed limits. During winter they are reduced with 20 km/h so expressways are signposted with 90 km/h and motorways 110 km/h. Becouse of this they should mostly have electric signs, so Vegvesenet can reduce/raise the speed limit easier.

This give the speed limits a bit more common sense. They will seem more logical to people. Therefor more people will obay them, and number of accidents will be reduced.

Third I want new road profiles. Today we got 9 different profiles regarding width on rural roads. If we include other criterias like curves we got 11 different profiles for rural roads. This is to much, and lead to way to many changes in standard. 

All future rural roads should be built according to five different profiles.

7,5 meter rural road. Minimum standard for local routes. Lanes 3 meters, shoulders 75 cm. 









9,5 meter rural road. Prefered minimum standard on regional routes. Lanes 3,75 meters, shoulders 1 meter.









11,5 meter expressway. Prefered minimum standard on national routes. Lanes 3,75 meters, shoulder 1,5 meters, median with "rumble felt" 1 meter.









2x11,5 meter motorway. Lanes 3,75 meters, inner shoulders 1 meter, outer shoulder 3 meters.
Minimum 24 meter with a 1 meter wide concrete barrier,









or minimum 27 meter with a 4 meter wide grass median.









As you understand I want no kind of 1+1, 1+2 or 2+2 expressways. In my opinion they are only expensive short term solutions. All roads that now is built as 1+1, 1+2 or 2+2 expressways will soon show need for motorways. Some of them already does so. The time from a regular two lane expressway becomes unmodern, to the time the need for motorway comes is really short. Often not more than 15 years. As new roads should be planed with minimum a 30 year perspective, this means that the need for motorway will come in the same period as a two lane expressway becomes unmodern. This means that when a two lane expressway starts to be unmodern, the need for motorway will be there within 30 years. So becouse of this, we should drop 1+1, 1+2 and 2+2 expressways.

This will lead to the same standard over longer stretches, insted of a change in standard every 20 km like today. Becouse of this the whole network will give an better impression than the mess of roads that we are building today.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

Hansadyret said:


> What are the trafficnumbers if you compare the two valleys? Gudbrandsdalen also serves the north-west and west going north(Dovre) but i guess østerdalen gives a more stable winteroption.


Short story: 

Transit traffic (i.e. Kolomoen (Stange)-Ulsberg) is higher on RV3, particularly trucks, of which there are more than 700 per day in total
Traffic across Dovre is lower than at the least trafficated point on Rv3
Local traffic is higher on E6 than on Rv3, which Kjello0 already has pointed out
From a Bergen perspective: Total traffic at the least trafficated points of E6 and Rv3 combined is a bit higher than similar number for E134, Rv 7 , Rv52, Rv50, and E16 combined. However, total traffic work (including local traffic) on E6+Rv3 is much higher.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

^^ Kjello0

Interesting system you propose here! I agree to most of what you are writing, but I think that a fence or barrier is required even with 4 m median. Also, I think that a narrow motorway could be a fairly good solution on low-traffic motorways, at least if the width of bridges, overpasses, tunnels etc. is large enough for inexpensive expansion of road surface width once the traffic numbers call for it? What would be your criteria for the different standards? And why not making rv 1 continous to Kirkenes?

Regarding the speedlimit, I think perhaps 110 is too much. In any case, speed limits should be controlled according to the road surface (i.e. whether it is dry, wet, soaking wet or icy) rather than the calendar.



Kjello0 said:


> In the valley it self there is much higher traffic through Gudbrandsdalen compared to Østerdalen. The main reason for this is that Gudbrandsdalen is much more populated than Østerdalen. While Gudbrandsdalen got over 70 000 inhabitans, Østerdalen only got 22 000 inhabitans. Gudbrandsdalen also got much more turists and hut people than Østerdalen does.
> 
> So even if we build a motorway up Østerdalen all the way to Trondheim, we still need a motorway up Gudbrandsdalen to Otta. On the other hand, if we build a motorway up Gudbrandsdalen all the way to Trondheim, we probably wouldn't need a motorway longer than to Rena in Østerdalen. Perhaps not even that far.
> 
> So if we want the cheapest option for a motorway between Oslo and Trondheim, Gudbrandsdalen will be choosen.


This is not really coherent with route 1 on your map, and I certainly disagree. I had a rather long and sometimes heated debate about this very issue a couple of years ago , which I am not very inclined to repeat (for one reason, I do not have the time, I you feeel the urge, check here). My summary from back then follows, but my main four points are that:

 Dovre will never be the chosen transit road Trondheim-Oslo. That is especially true for the trucks, who cannot drive much faster on a motorway than they do today in Østerdalen, and do not want to make the climb up to the Dovre plateau.
I want to see a drastic reduction in domestic air traffic in Norway, which is not currently environmental sustainable. My scenario would be railway for bussiness Trondheim-Oslo point-2-point travel, motorway for the rest. In such a scenario, the transit road traffic could easily increase to 8000 AADT, but not with Gudbrandsdalen: it is too long a detour to be a viable alternative to air.
Gudbrandsdalen / Dovre would IMO be destroyed if a motorway was pushed through, many others are of the same opinion. Hence, unless you go to extremely expensive solutions, it will be politically impossible. Remember that Dovre mountain is a national park with one of the last remaining wild reindeer populations in Europe.
Even if you do not go to extreme measures in Dovre / Gudbrandsdalen, I strongly believe that the 230 km Rena-Ulsberg (Rv 3)can be made significantly cheaper than the 160 km Otta-Ulsberg (E6). Østerdalen is as good as it gets in Norway regarding road building: Mostly moraine, fairly flat, a limited number of interchanges required. Long sections of the current road have so good curvature that as a first cut it would be sufficient to build a new carriage way beside the old one. This is certainly not the case in Gudbrandsdalen.

OK, before I get carried away, here is my summary from the last row on the subject (with some corrections).....



54°26′S 3°24′E;24022770 said:


> *Concluding Remarks*
> 
> E6 is supposed to be the road that runs through Norway and connect the south to the north in the 2500 km long country caller Norway
> Today, however, most car traffic and 90 % of the truck traffic between the main population centers on the route, Trondheim-area and Oslo, is using another road, rv 3 further to the east, on approximately 300 km of the route. Rv 3 is drawn in blue on the map above. The reason is that rv 3 is 44 km shorter, is flatter (with highest point roughly 300 m lower), and has better curvature than E6 (hopefully not disputed), and is 40-60 minutes faster (disputed by Elvis77), a situation that is not likely to change in the future
> Rv 3 today connects the main population center of the country, the greater Oslo area, everything south of Oslo, as well as Akershus and Hedmark counties to central and Northern Norway (at least the two Trøndelag counties, Nordland and small parts of Møre og Romsdal), with a total population of at least 650 000, including the third biggest city in Norway, Trondheim, which currently has the second largest population growth in absolute numbers. With a significant improvement of the road, rv 3 may also serve some of the traffic between southern Norway and the two northernmost counties with additional 225 000 people, which today mostly goes through Sweden, as well as the northern part of Møre and Romsdal (roughly 120 000). Potentially the rv 3 can thus serve as the southern transit route for the whole roughly 1 M people of northern and central Norway. The traffic growth on rv 3 has been very high lately.
> E6, following the current route is also an important road. It connects Oslo and southern Hedmark/Oppland with the North-Western part of South Norway as well as the upper part of the interior county of Oppland, with a total population estimated to 380 000. These regions have a population growth lower than the national average. In addition it connects central Norway (Trondheim) with upper Oppland and parts of central western Norway, at least during summer, but this generate relatively little traffic. Also E6 has had quite high growth during the last few years, in part due to recreational traffic between the Oslo-area and the ski-resorts established in Gudbrandsdalen due to the Lillehammer Olympics 1994.
> According to the Norwegian road authorities, the functions of rv 3 vs E6 is not likely to change even if the current E6 is improved. The advantages of rv 3 is simply too large for the transit traffic.
> The E6 goes through a quite narrow, winding valley with many towns and beautiful cultural landscape, and the mountain pass is through a national park with threatened species like mountain fox and wild reindeer. Significant improvements for transit traffic will thus be quite expensive and controversial. On the other hand, rv 3 goes through a much less steep, and mainly forested (and rather boring) valley, mostly with moraine gravel ground, and is, on a Norwegian scale, a very easy place to build roads.
> Between 51 and 56 % (depending on how you calculate) of the total goods tonnage-km is today transit traffic based on 2005 numbers. The split between rv 3 and E6 is similar, with between 45-49 % on rv 3. Since 2005 goods traffic at least on rv 3 has increased dramatically, 33 % only from 2006 to 2007. Correspondingly, the transit AADT-km is at least between 27 and 29 %. Rv 3 carries between 35 and 38 % of the total AADT-km, but most of the AADT km of E6 comes on the southern leg of E6 which essentially is a detour for the transit traffic.
> In conclusion:
> I think that many aspects favours to move the E6 to where rv 3 goes today. This is after all where the north-south traffic goes and will go for the foreseeable future. The current E6 between Kolomoen (split rv 3/E6) and Dombås is also an important road, but with more of a regional character, and it is essentially a dead end (i.e. little transit traffic). I think it would be a good idea to extending E136 through Gudbrandsdalen to Kolomoen, since this road is already serving the North-western corner of Southern Norway.
> 
> Renumbering the roads are however not the most important issue. What bugs me incredible is however when people, mostly from the district where the current E6 runs, argue that this is the “main north-south route” or even “the main Oslo-Trondheim highway”. It is neither, and will never be again. It is complete mysterious that rv 3 is not the signposted Trondheim-Oslo road, well, I guess it leaves the average tourist with a better impression of Norway as E6 is without doubt the most pittoresque of the two roads!
> 
> Like many roads in Norway, both roads need improvement, very badly, considering the amount of traffic and importance of the two roads. However, Rv 3 I believe has the largest potential on a cost/benefit basis for a possible future national motorway network.


----------



## KiwiRob

54°26′S 3°24′E;56779915 said:


> [*]I want to see a drastic reduction in domestic air traffic in Norway, which is not currently environmental sustainable.


How do you propose stopping people flying when



54°26′S 3°24′E;56779915 said:


> Regarding the speedlimit, I think perhaps 110 is too much.


you think that 110km is too high. On a decent motorway 110-130 should be safe and easy to achieve, with electronic signs it will be easy to adjust the speed limit to weather conditions. 

People won't stop flying when there is no decent alternative on offer, at the moment the proposed high speed rail network is pretty pathetic and certainly wouldn't stop me flying, unless the motorways are improved and the speed limits raised to a sensible level I wouldn't take my car either.


----------



## Ingenioren

Kjello0 said:


> 110 km/h, expressways, minimum 11,5 meters.


Those are not motorways, no roads without a real divider can have such a speed limit.


----------



## Fargo Wolf

Ingenioren said:


> Those are not motorways, no roads without a real divider can have such a speed limit.


Why not? The Coquihalla (pronounced Coke-a-halla) Motorway between Kamloops and Hope, here in Canada has grass medians in several areas that are of similar widths, just south west of Merritt. The posted limit along the entire length is 110 KM/H. The rest just have a 110 cm high No-Post (Concrete guardrail) on other sections.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

They also have 110 limits on 2+1 roads in Luxembourg.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

KiwiRob said:


> 54°26′S 3°24′E;56779915 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Regarding the speedlimit, I think perhaps 110 is too much.
> 
> 
> 
> How do you propose stopping people flying when
> 
> 
> 
> you think that 110km is too high. On a decent motorway 110-130 should be safe and easy to achieve, with electronic signs it will be easy to adjust the speed limit to weather conditions.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I did not express my self clearly / as intended here. I was only talking about the 110 km / h limit on the 11.5 m wide highway without divider or median. In retrospect, however, 110 km / h could be acceptable as a max limit on a few such roads provided that:

 Their traffic is low (below 1000 AADT?) and goes through rural areas
 Speed limits are electronically controlled (and I do not mean enforced here), adjusting for factors such as weather conditions / surface friction and traffic
 Geometry of road is good, no at-level junctions, side terrain cleared and secured against crossings of cows, sheep, moose, bears and other large sized wildlife (but with frequent tunnels / bridges for wildlife)

For good motorways in rural Norway, I think 130 (enforced as today's limits) and even 150 (more strictly enforced than the current limits) could be feasible with electronically controlled (again, not enforced) speed limits. Probably I would prefer the former of environmental reasons though.



KiwiRob said:


> People won't stop flying when there is no decent alternative on offer, at the moment the proposed high speed rail network is pretty pathetic and certainly wouldn't stop me flying, unless the motorways are improved and the speed limits raised to a sensible level I wouldn't take my car either.


I though this was my point. I don't think high speed rail network will ever reach Molde...



Fargo Wolf said:


> Ingenioren said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those are not motorways, no roads without a real divider can have such a speed limit.
> 
> 
> 
> Why not? The Coquihalla (pronounced Coke-a-halla) Motorway between Kamloops and Hope, here in Canada has grass medians in several areas that are of similar widths, just south west of Merritt. The posted limit along the entire length is 110 KM/H. The rest just have a 110 cm high No-Post (Concrete guardrail) on other sections.
Click to expand...

Firstly, we are talking about two-lane roads without even a median. Secondly, as long as Canada has significantly higher number of deaths both per capita and driven km than Norway (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate ), your argument will not impress the safety possessed Norwegian public.


----------



## KiwiRob

54°26′S 3°24′E;57236293 said:


> I though this was my point. I don't think high speed rail network will ever reach Molde...
> .


I don't expect it to either, I very much doubt it will even reach Ålesund. 

There just aren't enough people living in enough densely populated areas to make HSR viable in Norway, if it is built I suspect it will be heavily subsidised and I'm sure the govt will have to put additional taxes on the air routes it will compete against to force people to use it.


----------



## Kjello0

54°26′S 3°24′E;56779915 said:


> ^^ Kjello0
> Interesting system you propose here! I agree to most of what you are writing, but I think that a fence or barrier is required even with 4 m median. Also, I think that a narrow motorway could be a fairly good solution on low-traffic motorways, at least if the width of bridges, overpasses, tunnels etc. is large enough for inexpensive expansion of road surface width once the traffic numbers call for it? What would be your criteria for the different standards? And why not making rv 1 continous to Kirkenes?


First, a 27 meter wide motorway with a 4 meter wide median should of course have regular crash barriers. 

If you want a inexpensive expansion from narrow motorway to a regular motorway, the cost for a narrow motorway would be so close to a regular motorway in the first place, that it wouldn't make a big enough difference to be chosen. The advantages would be to small compared to the disadvantages. 

The criteria I'll come back to when I'm back at my apartment this evening.

Why not Rv 1 all the way to Kirkenes? The main reason is that it in no way would be the preferred route between Finnmark and eastern Norway. Driving through Sweden will always be shorter. However, between Trøndelag and Finnmark it would become the preferred route if it has modern roads with decent speed limits. 
The other reason is that I couldn't find the need for Rv 9 elsewhere. 

The two same reasons is also why I have two routes on what's now E39 between Trondheim and Kristiansand. E39 would in no way be the preferred route between Trondheim and Kristiansand. Østerdalen/E18 is the preferred route there. At max E39 is the preferred route for Trondheim - Stavanger and Kristiansand - Ålesund. And hence two routes with Bergen as the meeting point seems natural.



54°26′S 3°24′E;56779915 said:


> Regarding the speedlimit, I think perhaps 110 is too much. In any case, speed limits should be controlled according to the road surface (i.e. whether it is dry, wet, soaking wet or icy) rather than the calendar.


Road conditions should of course affect the speed limit. My point was that under good conditions, the highest speed limit should be 130 km/h on motorways during summer, and 110 km/h during winter. Special conditions should of course lead to an even lower speed limit. When it comes to the 110 km/h on a 11,5 meter expressway, I think it's acceptable on low traffic roads with high standard and good road conditions. When I say low traffic I mean between 3000 and 6000 AaDT. The now 10 meter wide expressway with 80 km/h is designed for traffic between 4000 and 8000 AaDT. 
Sweden has had 110 km/h on regular roads in northern Sweden for years without having problems with many accidents. Though most of them now has 100 km/h after they started using 10 km/h steps. 110 km/h during summer at low traffic expressways is in my opinion a acceptable speed limit. To take a local example. E39 between Orkanger and Klett was opened as expressway in 2005. The road is 10 meter wide, though without rumble felt and is signposted 80 km/h. The traffic is 7000 between Orkanger and Børsa, 8750 between Børsa and Buvika, 9400 between Buvika and Øysand, and 11 000 between Øysand and Klett (Not expressway). Since the opening there has only been two accidents on the road. Both times one of the cars drove close to 200 km/h. Driving 110 km/h during summer would not be dangerous during summer on a such road. And then we are talking about a road that has much higher traffic than what I propose for my 11,5 meter expressway with 110 km/h. It's also 1,5 meter more narrow and don't have rumble felt like I propose. 



54°26′S 3°24′E;56779915 said:


> This is not really coherent with route 1 on your map, and I certainly disagree. I had a rather long and sometimes heated debate about this very issue a couple of years ago , which I am not very inclined to repeat (for one reason, I do not have the time, I you feeel the urge,


I do of course agree with you, and hence Rv 1 up Østerdalen on my map. However, I fear that the politicians don't. Whenever there is talk of a motorway between Oslo and Trondheim they pretty much always talk about up Gudbrandsdalen. Even organisations like BilAksjonen and BedreVeier.org use Gudbrandsdalen in their proposed network. And even tough you may be right about the costs, I think politicians will choose Gudbrandsdalen with the argument that it's much shorter between Otta and Ulsberg than Rena/Elverum - Ulsberg. And hence the cost must be lower. Sadly a classic way of thinking in Norway.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

As I have pointed out, the Otta-Ulsberg is only 70 km shorter than Rena-Ulsberg, but you are right that the Gudbrandsdal local politicians are making a lot of noise branding the E6 as the main Oslo-Trondheim road (which is far from the truth), and most national politicians are unfortunately mostly ignorant fools.... Regarding the speed limits, I think 110 km / h should not be used on a two-lane road unless it is of very high standard and with traffic below 1000 AADT (or perhaps even 500). Otherwise I agree with most of what you are writing. Bilaksjonen and Bedreveier seem currently quite dormant, BTW, perhaps we should start something new


----------



## Kjello0

This road in Sweden is signposted 100 km/h, and was until recently signposted 110 km/h.










So why can't this road be signposted 110 km/h?










My proposed 11,5 meter expressway will be 1,5 meter wider than this road, and have a 1 meter rumble felt in the middle. Making it much safer than both these roads. So I don't see 110 km/h during summer and very good road conditions as dangerous. Under special conditions such as bad weather or very high traffic Vegvesenet may reduce the speed limit as they have electronic signs remotely controlled.

I've actually considered to start a organisation of some kind. But I have so many projects going on that I don't have time to work on half of them. I started writing the post with my plans in february.


----------



## Jeroen669

54°26′S 3°24′E;57236293 said:


> Sorry, I did not express my self clearly / as intended here. I was only talking about the 110 km / h limit on the 11.5 m wide highway without divider or median. In retrospect, however, 110 km / h could be acceptable as a max limit on a few such roads provided that:
> 
> Their traffic is low (below 1000 AADT?) and goes through rural areas
> Speed limits are electronically controlled (and I do not mean enforced here), adjusting for factors such as weather conditions / surface friction and traffic
> Geometry of road is good, no at-level junctions, side terrain cleared and secured against crossings of cows, sheep, moose, bears and other large sized wildlife (but with frequent tunnels / bridges for wildlife)


I saw 110km/h limits on 2+1 roads (without divider) in Luxembourg, yet it didn't feel unsafe to drive that fast there. Your demands are a bit too restrictive imo. Controlling every more quite main road is just too expensive, people need to take their own responsibility to adjust the speed when driving conditions worsen.


----------



## ElviS77

Jeroen669 said:


> I saw 110km/h limits on 2+1 roads (without divider) in Luxembourg, yet it didn't feel unsafe to drive that fast there. Your demands are a bit too restrictive imo. Controlling every more quite main road is just too expensive, people need to take their own responsibility to adjust the speed when driving conditions worsen.


Well, the point is that such roads with such speed limits make any driver error potentially fatal. You will not survive a head-on crash at such speeds. This is the basic principle behind "Nullvisjonen" - zero fatalities vision - which is a guideline both in Norway and - even more so - in Sweden. Other countries might have different opinions, and in extreme circumstances (like Australia), speed limits beyond 90-100 kph might make sense. IMHO, I believe that one should focus on far safer 1+1/2+1 roads, where such limits make perfect sense.


----------



## Jeroen669

Hitting a pedestrian in a residential area at 30km/h can already be "potentially fatal" too. 

How do people get in the wrong lane in the first place? Rarely because of speeding, but because of things like slippery roads, drunk driving, unadjusted speed in worse weather circumstances etc. A zero fatilities vision is just unrealistic. If you want that you should ban motorized traffic...


----------



## Fargo Wolf

ElviS77 said:


> Well, the point is that such roads with such speed limits make any driver error potentially fatal. You will not survive a head-on crash at such speeds. This is the basic principle behind "Nullvisjonen" - zero fatalities vision - which is a guideline both in Norway and - even more so - in Sweden. Other countries might have different opinions, and in extreme circumstances (like Australia), speed limits beyond 90-100 kph might make sense. IMHO, I believe that one should focus on far safer 1+1/2+1 roads, where such limits make perfect sense.


That's quite interesting. I lived in Alberta for a while, first as a kid, then later when I was working in the Northern part of the province. the posted limit is 100 KM/H (No barrier either), Being Alberta, one always adds 10KM/H to the posted limit. With the exception between Valleyview and Whitecourt, I felt perfectly safe doing 110 KM/H on a two lane, two way highway. Having said that though, I only did so in the summer, NEVER in the winter, or adverse conditions. Another factor I took into account, is that North Central Alberta is FLAT. You will see headlights on the horizon, but it MAY take more than an hour for that vehicle to reach you.

Having never been to Norway, or Sweden, I can't really comment with any accuracy, but will say that IF, and that's a big "if" the highway is designed properly, it is entirely possible for such a road to have a 110 KM/H limit.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Jeroen669 said:


> How do people get in the wrong lane in the first place? Rarely because of speeding, but because of things like slippery roads, drunk driving, unadjusted speed in worse weather circumstances etc.


I believe most head-on accidents occur when a car gets off the road on the right side, then steer abruptly to the left and crash on an oncoming vehicle.


----------



## Ingenioren

*The most ridiculous bridge project ever starts construction soon*

Basicly the Mega-bridge will give Askvoll, (a dead end village with *population at 566*) ferry free connection village on the other side of the fjord named Dale, *population 980*. Oh yeah, did i mention Askvoll already has a ferry-free road to closest town Førde and mainroad E39 and that AADT for the ferry is wooping *45 vehicles per day*?



















The roadproject consists of a suspension bridge with span at 523 meters, 4,2 km new tunnels and 5,2 km with new surface-road.

http://www.vareveger.no/article247195.ece

Who said we had horrible roads in Norway, eh? 

http://www.dalsfjordbrua.no/
http://www.vegvesen.no/Vegprosjekter/fv609dalsfjord/Fakta/Prosjektbeskrivelse


----------



## Kjello0

Well, It should never have been stoped in the first place as over half the road from Rivedal and eastwards was build in the period 1975-81. 

It will also be the chosen route for my new Rv 8 from Bergen to Trondheim


----------



## Þróndeimr

Nordre Avlastningsvei in Trondheim opened today. Here is a few very bad pictures i took this late cloudy evening.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

> Nordre Avlastningsvei in Trondheim


Can we translate that als "northern relief road"? It sounds remarkably much like Dutch (noordelijke ontlastingsweg).


----------



## Þróndeimr

ChrisZwolle said:


> Can we translate that als "northern relief road"? It sounds remarkably much like Dutch (noordelijke ontlastingsweg).


Yes exactly. This is the first step to make downtown Trondheim car-free. With this road much of the traffic going from east-west direction can go on the new road instead of through the downtown.


----------



## Fargo Wolf

ChrisZwolle said:


> I believe most head-on accidents occur when a car gets off the road on the right side, then steer abruptly to the left and crash on an oncoming vehicle.


Impatient drivers, drivers who misjudge the distance of oncoming vehicles (Has happened to me on several occasions where I've had to get out of the way of such a driver)

The scenario you present, would be if the road has a gravel or no shoulder. The tires drop off the pavement edge and the driver panics, steering too sharply in an attempt to get back onto the roadway.


----------



## IceCheese

Why would they use green signing for 706? Imo this should be limited to Stamveger, and Stamveger should be limitided to road numbers from (Rv) 1-99 (and E-routes).


----------



## Ingenioren

Kjello0 said:


> Well, It should never have been stoped in the first place as over half the road from Rivedal and eastwards was build in the period 1975-81.
> 
> It will also be the chosen route for my new Rv 8 from Bergen to Trondheim


I respect the need for a proper road to Rivedal, as there is a little village there (been there once.) If this would have been part of a regional road as you envisioned there wouldn't be anything wrong with this. Cool project anyway, i'm bored with all the underground fjordcrossings.



IceCheese said:


> Why would they use green signing for 706? Imo this should be limited to Stamveger, and Stamveger should be limitided to road numbers from (Rv) 1-99 (and E-routes).


I disagree, it's like Rv150 and Rv190 in Oslo, this is an important road, but it's so short that a nice 2-diggit number would be silly. I'm glad they aren't signing it as an arm of E6 as previously done with the Midtbycrossing - or with no number as is the case with Ryen - Bjørvika expressway in Oslo.

I wonder if the new riksveger will eventually get green signs when these are changed as these are often only pieces of routes (example Rv21 from E6 to Halden), but then again this is the case of Rv/Fv 7 this has been done for years.



Þróndeimr said:


> Here is a few very bad pictures i took this late cloudy evening.


 Very nice pictures, thanks for showing!


----------



## Kjello0

IceCheese said:


> Why would they use green signing for 706? Imo this should be limited to Stamveger, and Stamveger should be limitided to road numbers from (Rv) 1-99 (and E-routes).


Well, it wasn't far away from being signposted E6. Giving E6 three routes in Trondheim. The projects name is also "E6 Nordre Avlastningsvei".

My guess is that all roads that are now part of the new Riksvei network, gets green signs, while old riksveis that now is fylkesveier remains white.

As earlier stated, I want all signs to be white, in a system where number of digits decide the importance of the road. Like the system once was intended to be.
1-9 National routes
10-99 Regional routes
100-999 Local routes


----------



## Ingenioren

I guess the Midtbyen route will change number aswell now, maybe it will even be without one? AFAIK Omkjøringsvegen is the real E6 corridor.

It just doesn't make sense to have 2 numbers for one road (Neither does 1 number for 2 roads - even when they are Ringroads.), i want us to stay with the Euroroads, since i'm a fan of anything boosting internationalism. There are quite a few available numbers tough, i don't know if any road deserves Rv1, isn't this sort of "Hurtigrutens" number? But the other numbers should probably be reasonable to find a road to fit. Rv111 Fredrikstad - Rakkestad could for example have a better number (11?).

Available numbers are 1, 11, 54, 56, 59, 66, 67, 68, 71, 79, 88, 89, 90, 95, 96, 97, 99.


----------



## ElviS77

Fargo Wolf said:


> That's quite interesting. I lived in Alberta for a while, first as a kid, then later when I was working in the Northern part of the province. the posted limit is 100 KM/H (No barrier either), Being Alberta, one always adds 10KM/H to the posted limit. With the exception between Valleyview and Whitecourt, I felt perfectly safe doing 110 KM/H on a two lane, two way highway. Having said that though, I only did so in the summer, NEVER in the winter, or adverse conditions. Another factor I took into account, is that North Central Alberta is FLAT. You will see headlights on the horizon, but it MAY take more than an hour for that vehicle to reach you.
> 
> Having never been to Norway, or Sweden, I can't really comment with any accuracy, but will say that IF, and that's a big "if" the highway is designed properly, it is entirely possible for such a road to have a 110 KM/H limit.


Well, if your stated aim is a zero fatality road network, such limits are unrealistic. By all means, I often feel perfectly safe doing 100-110, possibly faster, on 2-lane undivided highways. But as long as cars are driven by people, crashes will happen. And at more than roughly 70 kph, no car will save you if you get involved in a head-on collision. 

That said, limits as low as 70 kph on all regular highways are an unrealistic proposition, even in safety-crazed Scandinavia. Still, I do believe that limits higher than 80-90 should be avoided on most such roads, not least because the everyday driver, as you say, tend to go 10-20 kph above the limit. Not a problem when everything is all right, worse if someone messes up.


----------



## KiwiRob

Ingenioren said:


> I think that maybe if Møreaksen is built, we wouldn't need airports for Ålesund and Kristiansund, Molde could serve as an all Møre Airport. What do you think about this?
> http://www.moreaksen.no/


I completely agree, Møresksen is supposed to shorten the drive from Kristiansund to Ålesund to 1.5 hours, the catchment area for a central airport would be 220,000 people, just think of all the destinations that an airport serving that number of people would allow. More point to point flights and less transfers at Gardermoen. 

Møreaksen is a great project, although MRF must be betting that it's not going to happen for a long time since they have purchased three new gasferries from Remontova, 2 have been delivered already.


----------



## Ingenioren

It would probably take around 10 years, as that is often the time from decission is made to project is open.


----------



## ElviS77

Kjello0 said:


> 1-9 National routes
> 10-99 Regional routes
> 100-999 Local routes


A couple of things... The *old* national/regional/local numbering system was intended to be 1-19 plus E routes as the national ones, 20-99 regional and 100+ for local ones. However, this has been messed up considerably of late... I also believe that E route numbers are sufficient, we don't need a dual numbering system. Still, a revision of the current chaos would be a good idea, both in terms of "riksveier" and "fylkesveier".

On a very different note. Speed and speeding have been hot topics from time to time. With the holidays coming up, here are a few hints for foreign motorists on Norwegian roads: Motorways, particularly those with a 100 kph limit, are fairly safe. Doing 10-25 above won't hurt you, everyone else does that as well. Besides, such roads are generally policed only by unmarked cars looking for the serious offenders. However, if you feel like opening up big time, be aware that fines are heavy - doing 140 may relieve your holiday budget of 1000 euros, doing 180-200, will most likely send you straight to jail through a new, way faster, system.

On divided expressways (1+1, 2+1, 2+2) with a 80-90 limit, the story is much the same. These aren't places you're likely to see speed cameras or speed traps, but serious speeding may well get you into an expensive mess. Undivided 2-lane highways are a different cup of tea, though. They are rather busy, and there are - by Norwegian standards - quite a few accidents there. Thus, such roads have quite a few speed cameras (even ones that measure average speed over a given distance) and the police presence is more obvious.

Still, speed traps are more often found in towns and villages. Thus, observing 40, 50 or 60 kph zones (at least to some extent...) makes even more financial sense than avoiding three digits on the speedometre on rural highways. In addition, and if you're not in too much of a hurry, regional and local roads are more fun anyways - less traffic, almost no police, things to see... Enjoy!


----------



## DanielFigFoz

:drool: The yellow lines in the middle, I wish they had them around the rest of Europe too, the different colours are aestically pleasing and probably safer too.

Edit: I have seen photos of Sweden with lots of American cars, is it the same in Norway?


----------



## ElviS77

DanielFigFoz said:


> Edit: I have seen photos of Sweden with lots of American cars, is it the same in Norway?


Depends what you mean by "lots"...

But Sweden and Norway aren't that different, there are some people who are hardcore "Amcar" fans, they are a minority, though. The main difference between Norway and Sweden is the fact that Swedish cars, on average, are considerably newer than Norwegian ones. The most common cars in both countries are your average Toyotas, Volvos, Fords, VWs, Opels etc...


----------



## snowman159

I read somewhere that Sweden is the biggest market for American cars outside of North America.


----------



## Grauthue

DanielFigFoz said:


> :drool: The yellow lines in the middle, I wish they had them around the rest of Europe too, the different colours are aestically pleasing and probably safer too.


Yes, I think the main reason for all the yellow lines in Norway is because they are easier to see when you have a bit of snow on the road, which is not uncommon in Norway


----------



## Pannyers

snowman159 said:


> I read somewhere that Sweden is the biggest market for American cars outside of North America.


Every summer their are big festivals with American Cars.


----------



## Fargo Wolf

Scandinavia in general seems to have a lot of people who own North American vehicles, not just cars. One only has to look to Iceland. Full size Fords, Chevy and Dodge P/U trucks and vans as well as full size cars like Ford's Crown Victoria.


----------



## ElviS77

Fargo Wolf said:


> Scandinavia in general seems to have a lot of people who own North American vehicles, not just cars. One only has to look to Iceland. Full size Fords, Chevy and Dodge P/U trucks and vans as well as full size cars like Ford's Crown Victoria.


Iceland is a bit special, both because they need their 4x4s and because they've had a significant American prescence at Keflavik for decades. The Norwegian and Swedish fascination is a somewhat niche one, the everyday motorist aren't that interested: we don't need big cars that are perfect for cruising along 4-lane boulevards... Family guys want Avensises or V70s, off-road enthusiasts like Land Cruisers or Land Rovers, cocky yuppies prefer Beamers or Audis.


----------



## KiwiRob

Bugger guess I moved fro being a cocky yuppie to a family guy, BMW 3 series to a Volvo V70. Would have bought a 5 series touring or an A6 Avant but they were 100k more than the V70.


----------



## ElviS77

KiwiRob said:


> Bugger guess I moved fro being a cocky yuppie to a family guy, BMW 3 series to a Volvo V70. Would have bought a 5 series touring or an A6 Avant but they were 100k more than the V70.


I didn't say they were the only ones who go for Beamers... On the other hand, you made a wise choice...


----------



## notifyist

Anyone who can give me a good reason for this not being signed a motorway?

Fritz C. Riebers Vei (Rv580 and E39)
I think this road has more than good enough standards to be signposted as a motorway.











































You can also go to Google Maps and turn on street-view to look at the standards.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Politics. There are thousands of kilometers of road just like that in Europe that are classified as expressways or even less.


----------



## Grauthue

Anyways. I can see from Google Earth that there was some construction work going on just south of here when the Google Earth pictures were taken (30 Jun 2005). What is the current situation with this road? How far south does the four lane stretch continue now? Is it connected to the four lane road going west to the airport?


----------



## notifyist

The stretch that should be signposted motorway is 7.7 km. I think what you see on Earth is when they expanded the part south of the tunnels to 2x2 lane.

Yes, this road(Rv580) is the major road to the airport. But after this interchange or junction(someone tell me)









, the road is 4 lane expressway with roundabouts, |2+:1|MEDIAN|1:2+| and carpool lanes.(2+)

This is the expressway to the airport. With some effort I think they easily upgrade the road to a motorway.


----------



## IceCheese

notifyist said:


> , the road is 4 lane expressway with roundabouts, |2+:1|MEDIAN|1:2+| I think it's called samkjørsfelt in norwegian. Atleast 2 persons in the car to drive in the outer lanes.


It's known as carpool lane in English


----------



## ElviS77

ChrisZwolle said:


> Politics. There are thousands of kilometers of road just like that in Europe that are classified as expressways or even less.


You're absolutely right. In Norway, we don't post shortish motorway-quality sections as motorways. The road in the pictures will probably get a motorway classification when the rest of the new E39 south of Bergen eventually is built.


----------



## notifyist

^^I guess. But then again it's not logical that the Åsaneveien (E39 and E16) north of downtown Bergen is classified motorway, as well as Rv555 to the west and the Ringvei Vest from west to south-west. Politicians:bash:

Why just not signpost the roads that qualify for motorway as motorway?


----------



## notifyist

IceCheese said:


> It's known as carpool lane in English



Ah, ok


----------



## ElviS77

notifyist said:


> ^^I guess. But then again it's not logical that the Åsaneveien (E39 and E16) north of downtown Bergen is classified motorway, as well as Rv555 to the west and the Ringvei Vest from west to south-west. Politicians:bash:
> 
> Why just not signpost the roads that qualify for motorway as motorway?


Actually, I think the official policy is that sections shorter than about 5 kms aren't considered motorways. You'll see exactly the same south of Trondheim and on the new E16 in Bærum, for instance. Curiously enough, the Fjellinjen tunnel in Oslo used to have motorway status even though it's only about 2 kms. However, with the gradual opening of the Bjørvika tunnel, the motorway signs have been replaced by expressway ones...


----------



## Ingenioren

"Tilbakevirkende kraft", anyone?


----------



## notifyist

^^?


----------



## notifyist

Puddefjord Bridge


----------



## Þróndeimr

*E6 Sandmoen-Tonstad*
First phase of the new 9.6km long E6 between Jaktøyen and Tonstad south of Trondheim. I made a large rendering (the map) for those who are
interested inseeing the details. The original plans are available at Vegvesen.no.

*Illustration with description (1002 x 2143 pixels)*
*VIEW LARGE SIZE (2987 x 6394 pixels | 2.4Mb)*









Illustrations, driving from Sandmoen to Tonstad.


----------



## Di-brazil

DanielFigFoz said:


> :drool: The yellow lines in the middle, I wish they had them around the rest of Europe too, the different colours are aestically pleasing and probably safer too.


yeah ^^^^^^^^^^^^


----------



## Red-Lion

Good woork Thróndeimr!

Also Good to see alternative "city syd" exit!


----------



## fetg_

Jaktöjen-Tonstad is the southern entrance on E6 to Trondheim. The congestion on the 2*1 road is massive at rush hours. The current entrance road(Jaktöjen-Tonstad) is however quite new, built in the early 90:ies IIRC bypassing southern village areas.

More illustrations can be seen here(krysstype G = junction model that was selected, H was scrapped).
http://www.vegvesen.no/Vegprosjekter/e6jaktoyentonstad/Illustrasjoner


----------



## Þróndeimr

Next page!


----------



## Þróndeimr

SINTEF and NorNet is making some grand plans for a truly unique bridge between Bø and Hadsel in Nordland. The bridge 
will be 3.8km long. Wind, wave and tide-turbines will be built on the bridge making the bridge producing a whole 
lot of renewable energy!

The bridge will be very useful for the 2 800 people living in the municipality of Bø in Vesterålen. A bridge here will 
shorten the road from the town of Bø with 2 hours of driving.














































Watch a video here:


----------



## Coccodrillo

Not another tunnel, this time? That's incredible:lol:


----------



## Þróndeimr

^^ tunnel? Norway has more bridges than tunnels.


----------



## Coccodrillo

But also a lot of long tunnels!

http://www.lotsberg.net/data/norway/sub.html


----------



## Coccodrillo

There is a gap on the main north-south road (E6) there: http://maps.google.ch/maps?f=q&sour...8.230202,16.263885&spn=0.342774,1.229095&z=10

There are plans to build a tunnel or a bridge there?


----------



## TohrAlkimista

Is the bridge between Bø and Hadsel already approved? BTW, awesome infrastructure.


----------



## Þróndeimr

Coccodrillo said:


> There is a gap on the main north-south road (E6) there: http://maps.google.ch/maps?f=q&sour...8.230202,16.263885&spn=0.342774,1.229095&z=10
> 
> There are plans to build a tunnel or a bridge there?


No, the stretch is too long and the fjord is too deep. A bridge would have to have a 3km long span, a tunnel would have to go 400m-700m below surface (deepest tunnel today goes 287m below surface). 



Coccodrillo said:


> But also a lot of long tunnels!
> 
> http://www.lotsberg.net/data/norway/sub.html


But this is only the sub-sea tunnels, there are far more tunnels, and longer tunnels going through our mountains. But still, we have more bridges! http://www.lotsberg.net/data/norway/list.html



TohrAlkimista said:


> Is the bridge between Bø and Hadsel already approved?


No, far from. Its at a very early stage of development.


----------



## Coccodrillo

Þróndeimr said:


> No, the stretch is too long and the fjord is too deep. A bridge would have to have a 3km long span, a tunnel would have to go 400m-700m below surface (deepest tunnel today goes 287m below surface).


Thank you. And what about a more inland route, near the end of the fiord?

What is the frequency of ferries on this route today?


----------



## Ni3lS

Looks like an interesting bridge. I hope it will be featured in megabridges on National Geographic


----------



## Þróndeimr

Coccodrillo said:


> Thank you. And what about a more inland route, near the end of the fiord?
> 
> What is the frequency of ferries on this route today?


Ferries run each 30min daytime, each hour in evening, no ferries between 01.00 and 05.00. Looking at the map there are a more inland rout, but it has a much longer ferry rout and road.


----------



## Coccodrillo

Thank you. And what is the average frequency of ferries on less busiest routes? Some udnersea tunnels have only 100 to 500 vehicles per day, so I imagine that once there were only a dozen or less ferry trips per day.


----------



## Þróndeimr

^^ most ferries have hourly routes daytime (even down to 50 vehicles per day routes), just smaller ferries on less busy routes.


----------



## ElviS77

Coccodrillo said:


> Thank you. And what about a more inland route, near the end of the fiord?


The problem regarding this, is that the project - which by no means is an impossible (or even especially difficult) feat of engineering - would be rather expensive. Back in the 80s, when the rest of the ferries along the E6 were replaced by bridges or new roads, the plans were pretty concrete. But as Throndheimr says, it was a more complex project and as the 80s became the 90s, such projects were not very popular anymore. The current (very slight) boost in road development has mainly been focused on developing poorer sections of the road network, particularly the busiest sections around Oslo and other cities.

That said, a decent new road was built to Kjøpsvik to the north of the Tysfjord some 15 years ago (don't remember exactly when). It could serve as a decent northern half of a fjord crossing until someone eventually decides to replace the entire crappy E6 section between Tysfjord and Narvik. However, a fixed Tysfjord link between Drag and Kjøpsvik would still require political lobbying on a very different scale than what we see today. Also, one should remember that even though this is the E6, the AADT figures are pretty low (around 1000, if I were to hazard a guess). However, a new link, possibly combined with a fixed Ofotfjord link to Vesterålen, could have a real potential for the northernmost region.


----------



## Kjello0

Tysfjorden is crossable in the outer parts of the fjord at 285 meters deep. Meaning a tunnel at 330 meters deep. And without looking at it closer I guess it would require a 20 km long tunnel.


----------



## ElviS77

Kjello0 said:


> Tysfjorden is crossable in the outer parts of the fjord at 285 meters deep. Meaning a tunnel at 330 meters deep. And without looking at it closer I guess it would require a 20 km long tunnel.


True. That's why that isn't particularly realistic. Bridging the narrower (and way deeper!) part further in, is the only reasonably feasable solution.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

^^ To be exact, in 2006 the Tysfjord crossing had a whopping ADDT of 386. The busies ferries crossings in Norway (Moss-Horten, Boknafjord, and Trondheimsfjorden (Flakk-Rørvik) are all in the thousands, with much higher potential should the ferries be eliminated. You have to remember that most people living north of Tysfjord use alternative routes (through Sweden) when going to southern Norway.



Kjello0 said:


> With the target a ferry free connection between Trondheim and Kristiansund/Molde the Halsafjord project is the only solution. The Talgsjø project compared to the Halsafjord project will only benefit those who live at the western parts of Tustna. As you can see from the picture below they suggest both a tunnel from Halsa to Tustna, and a tunnel from Tingvold to Frei. Giving most people that live in Aure a better connection to both Trondheim, Molde and Kristiansund. While people living at the western part of Tustna would prefer the Talgsjø project as that's the better connection for them to Kristiansund and Molde.
> 
> Talgsjø project will close one ferry. Halsafjord project will close three ferries.


On a slightly more realistic note, it seems like Halsafjord is getting some momentum now, and Kristiansund has said they prefer it to Talgsjøen. I doubt that the side tunnels to Frei and Tustna will have much chance, however.

If the Halsafjord crossing is realized, in addition to the probably more expensive (but more trafficated) Romsdalsfjord crossing, Trondheim-Ålesund will be ferry free, and Kjello can start to work for the second tube...


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Amazing how they replace all these ferries with large bridges for relatively small towns. I've read it's often better to build a bridge for 2,000 AADT than keep running subsidized ferry's. It's cheaper in the long-term.


----------



## Coccodrillo

Norwegian started to build tunnels at Vardø: 2800 metres for 2400 inhabitants and an AADT of 600.

But some undersea tunnels have an AADT of only 100 (this is the case for easier project, this one has only one 1800 and one 400 m tunnels in a new 8 km road).


----------



## Kjello0

54°26′S 3°24′E;60322279 said:


> On a slightly more realistic note, it seems like Halsafjord is getting some momentum now, and Kristiansund has said they prefer it to Talgsjøen. I doubt that the side tunnels to Frei and Tustna will have much chance, however.
> 
> If the Halsafjord crossing is realized, in addition to the probably more expensive (but more trafficated) Romsdalsfjord crossing, Trondheim-Ålesund will be ferry free, and Kjello can start to work for the second tube...


You know I won't be satisfied before we got a motorway from at least Halsa to Ulsteinvik and preferably all the way from Ørsta/Volda to Trondheim. Luckily a future Halsafjordtunnel will be 12-15 km long, which means two tubes anyways. But as stated, I won't stop whining before Norwegian politicians shows some visions and ambitions.










With a motorway between Trondheim and Steinkjer the total driving time from north to southwest in Central Norway would be about 3 hours. 

Motorway the whole way from Steinkjer to Ørsta/Volda is roughly estemated to cost 39 billion NOK. Devide it over 15 years building and that's 2,6 billions a year. The goverment draws in over 60 billions in car, road and fuel taxes every year, but only use 15 of them on roads which of only 5 goes to new roads. A massive 35 of those 60 billions is never even used on infrastructure.

If the goverment actually started using 40 billions a year on roads, which of 25 went to build new roads we would have fantastic roads within 20 years. I must say that I want to actually live long enough to see that happen. Sadly I fear that I as my parents will grow old with the same old road going 100 meters from our house.


----------



## ElviS77

54°26′S 3°24′E;60322279 said:


> ^^ To be exact, in 2006 the Tysfjord crossing had a whopping ADDT of 386. The busies ferries crossings in Norway (Moss-Horten, Boknafjord, and Trondheimsfjorden (Flakk-Rørvik) are all in the thousands, with much higher potential should the ferries be eliminated. You have to remember that most people living north of Tysfjord use alternative routes (through Sweden) when going to southern Norway.


I don't dispute any of these points - I'm not even in favour of replacing the Boknafjord ferry anytime soon. Too expensive, too little to be gained from it. That said, it doesn't mean that it won't happen given strong enough lobbyism. As you know, local and regional politicians may influence such decisions in a big way... Besides, a ferry free E6 is a far better idea than a 150 million Euro tunnel to the North Cape. Oh wait, the latter has already been built...:nuts:


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Norway is one of the richest countries in the world. If they are not willing to spend money on a larger motorway system, replacing ferries with bridges and tunnels is a good idea as well.


----------



## ElviS77

ChrisZwolle said:


> Norway is one of the richest countries in the world. If they are not willing to spend money on a larger motorway system, replacing ferries with bridges and tunnels is a good idea as well.


Well, the problem is that Norwegian politicians aren't particularly willing to spend too much money on infrastructure at all. There are several reasons for this, but the main problem is that any form of government spending is considered to be an issue, inflation-wise, and no form of spending is considered more worthwhile than others. A former Labour party MP and minister commented on the absurdity of this: "In the current climate, building roads or railways are no better in budgetary terms than eating money"...

In my opinion, we should pursue a three-pronged strategy in terms of road maintainance and construction: 1. Build motorways where the AADT pushes 10,000. 2. Improve trunk roads to a sensible and safe standard. 3. Maintain the remaining network better. The latter would also include widening or realigning of road sections that are way below acceptable standard. Just as we eliminated gravel sections from our national network 20 years ago, we should eliminate 1-lane sections.


----------



## metasmurf

Dear neighbours  I'm thinking of doing this: http://maps.google.se/maps?f=d&source=s_d&saddr=Storuman&daddr=Arjeplog+to:Narvik+to:Flakstad+to:Bod%C3%B6,+Norge+to:Kvarsnes,+Gildesk%C3%A5l,+Norge+to:Aldersund,+Lur%C3%B8y,+Norge+to:Mo+i+Rana,+Rana,+Norge+to:Storuman&hl=sv&geocode=FTRJ4QMdhywFASntAzCRQhd3RjEAhYzeBkUDBA%3BFZvO7wMdkccQASndOqop_DXVRTGjlP9bYauBhg%3BFb9BFAQdkXgJASn_H-TFh5XbRTGN9p_uNec4fA%3BFYXeDgQdm6vJACmP0DHryxDeRTGQNN0PqwgCBA%3BFX-cAgQdks3bACl98WNb9RDfRTFTPF2yk1t4jg%3BFWb0_QMdWPLXACk1oU4dpW_fRTEx5TcUrAgCJg%3BFVFn9QMdO1zIACkP_t0sggx1RjGAW25CqwgCKg%3BFUna8wMdQc3XACnTqvRqmMF1RjFwzK-RrQgCCg%3B&mra=ls&sll=66.864815,15.52234&sspn=5.535596,28.54248&ie=UTF8&z=6 roadtrip. Any must see places along this stretch? Small detours are acceptable as well.


----------



## Þróndeimr

^^ Grønligrotta near Mo i Rana, a 20km detour, but worth it. http://www.gronligrotta.no/

Hikes to Svartisen glacier?


----------



## ElviS77

metasmurf said:


> Any must see places along this stretch? Small detours are acceptable as well.


Lofoten is beautiful, but you might wanna give Vesterålen a try as well. Langøya is more than worth a visit, as is Andøya. The trip grows a bit, but still... You might also consider the outer part of Hamarøya and the Knut Hamsun centre. Henningsvær is also nice and not much of a detour, the same goes for Å, at the very end of the Lofoten road. Værøy and Røst are pretty spectacular, but require extra time. 

Anyways, enjoy your trip. A lot of beautiful things to see and experience!


----------



## ElviS77

On this site, you'll find information on the official "tourist routes". Quite a few pretty pictures...

http://www.turistveg.no/


----------



## metasmurf

Swedish motorcylist killed on E6 in Rennebu. It's incredible how E6 can have those bridges. Also, E6 Trondheim - Oslo should have 2+1 (mötesfri landsväg) as mininum standard

Link to article (in norwegian): http://www.adressa.no/nyheter/sortrondelag/article1508630.ece


----------



## KiwiRob

So why do some toll bridges and tunnels charge for the car and then for the passangers? This is crap why should it matter how many people are in the car? I can understand the per person charge on a ferry but not for a bridge or tunnel.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

^^ Is there any other place than Krifast (bridges tunnels around Kristiansund, including E39) who does this? In that case, it has something to do with the ferries that use to run these stretches, but I have never really understood it myself.


metasmurf said:


> Swedish motorcylist killed on E6 in Rennebu. It's incredible how E6 can have those bridges. Also, E6 Trondheim - Oslo should have 2+1 (mötesfri landsväg) as mininum standard
> 
> Link to article (in norwegian): http://www.adressa.no/nyheter/sortrondelag/article1508630.ece


Could not agree more. Videoclip from Stavå bridge can be found here:
http://www.arenatv.no/bygg_vei/bygg_vei_video.html


----------



## Kjello0

Atlanterhavstunnelen (Kristiansund - Averøy) has the same system.


----------



## KiwiRob

I got stung twice yesterday going into Kristiansund via Krifast and leaving via the Atlanterhavstunnelen, if I lived there I'd be made as hell, trapped on the island with no free access. I'd love to know why they did it like that, it's most unfare.


----------



## koloite

*Norway's most beautiful bridges*

'Teknisk ukeblad', a Norwegian magazine about engineering, held an online poll for the most beautiful bridges in Norway. The nominees can be found here: http://www.tu.no/bygg/bildeserier/article251579.ece


----------



## JeremyCastle

Hi all,

Been busy, haven't had a chance to post anything here in a couple months, it's good to be back.

Was having a conversation with something recently, and I told them that in 2007, I purchased a UK car and drove it to Norway and back(yes, I had insurance)on my US driver's license(California). He told me that what I did was illegal. I could have rented a car in London and drove it to France, but in no way was I allowed to purchase a British car and drive it to Europe.

I have no idea where else to post this question, so sorry if it's in the wrong area. Anyone know if I was truly in the wrong or does this guy not know what I he's talking about.

If I had been stopped by the police, say in France or The Netherlands, and presented my California license yet with proof that I owned the British car, what would they have possibly done? I am now living in the UK, and have a UK licence, so this wouldn't be an issue for me anymore, but I never gave it any thought until recently!

Thanks for info, I am curious as to whether I broke the law or not!  I'll post this question on some of the other motorway threads as well and see what people say.


----------



## Dan

As long as you had valid insurance, I don't see why not...


----------



## ElviS77

JeremyCastle said:


> Was having a conversation with something recently, and I told them that in 2007, I purchased a UK car and drove it to Norway and back(yes, I had insurance)on my US driver's license(California). He told me that what I did was illegal. I could have rented a car in London and drove it to France, but in no way was I allowed to purchase a British car and drive it to Europe.


I can't really see the problem here. If you've taken up permanent recidency in Norway, I believe you would have faced serious import taxes and possible impoundment of the car. But as a visitor? I can't see that your car's insurance would be any less valid than that of a UK driver, and that's the main issue. Apart from the taxman, that is...


----------



## Ingenioren

New breathtaking photos of Norways most beautiful roads, the "Tourist roads" from http://www.turistveg.no/ They also serve purpose of regional and local highways in most cases.

Fv44/Fv507, the Jæren coastal highway in southwestern Norway connects several towns toughout the coast region:

















Rv13/Fv520, the Ryfylke highway in southwestern Norway, a regional connection north-south trough inner western Norway:

























Rv7/Rv13/Fv550, the Hardanger highways in western Norway, shortest route from Bergen to Oslo:

































Fv51, Valdresflye mountainpass in eastern Norway, shortcut from Western to Mid-Norway and regional north-south connection for the inner eastern lands, closed during winter:









































































Fv243, Aurlands mountainpass. Great alternative road instead of the 24km tunnel on Oslo - Bergen highway E16, closed during winter.
























































E16 can be seen way down below:









Fv13, Gaular mountainpass, part of the inner north-south connection trough western Norway:

















































Fv55, Sogne mountain pass. Significant east-west connection. Winterclosed:

















































































Fv258, Old Stryne mountainpass, alternative to tunnels on east-west connection Rv15, winterclosed:
























































Rv15 down below:









Fv27, Rondane mountainpass, north-south connection in eatern Norway:









































Fv63, Geiranger mountainpass, north-south connection in mid-norway, winterclosed:
























Fv63 continues up the mountain in the background:









































Fv64/Fv663/Fv238/Fv235, Atlanterhavs coastal highway, parts of it is intercity highway between Kristiansund and Molde:

































Fv17, Helgelands coast south, coastal north-south connection in Northern Norway:

























Fv17, Helgelands coast north:

































E10, Lofoten, mainroad trough the archipelago in northern Norway:









































Fv82, Andøya, main road north-south trough the Vesterålen archipelago:

































Fv86/Fv862/Fv277, Senja, northern coastal highway for Norways 2nd largest island:









































Fv889, Havøysund. Only road leading to this remote fishingvillage:

















































E75/Fv341, Varanger, leading to easternmost point in Norway connecting some of the "larger" towns in Finnmark county:


----------



## Pannyers

^^ Very nice pictures!!!


----------



## Ingenioren

The process of national tourist highways is to upgrade and add new rest-stops troughout the routes, here are the finished rest-stops - many more are planned as this is a long-term project lasting from 1994 until 2020, more info about the projects here: http://www.turistvegprosjektet.com/FileArchive/200/Detour 2010 bladbar.swf:

Ryfylke:

































Hardanger:

































Valdresflya:

















Aurlandsfjellet:

















Gaularfjellet:

















Sognefjellet:

















































Gamle strynefjellsvegen:

















Rondane:

















































Geiranger:

















































Atlanterhavs road:

























Helgelands coast north:

























Lofoten:









































































































Senja:

























Havøysund:

















Varanger:


----------



## Maxx☢Power

^^ Very nice. I just wish they'd spend the same effort on fixing and building actual roads.


----------



## ssh

The Norwegian scenery is just breathtaking.


----------



## KiwiRob

ElviS77 said:


> I can't really see the problem here. If you've taken up permanent recidency in Norway, I believe you would have faced serious import taxes and possible impoundment of the car. But as a visitor? I can't see that your car's insurance would be any less valid than that of a UK driver, and that's the main issue. Apart from the taxman, that is...


If you move to Norway you have 12 months before you have to register the car with Norwegian plates and pay the import taxes on it. 

There is no issue about buying a car in the UK and driving it around Europe, thousands of New Zealanders and Australians do it every year, very few of them have UK drivers licenses, I've never heard of anyone having a problem.


----------



## KiwiRob

Maxx☢Power;62294665 said:


> ^^ Very nice. I just wish they'd spend the same effort on fixing and building actual roads.


I wish they would just add some passing lanes, not too hard to do and would stop people dangerously passing, trucks, bobils and camping vogons.


----------



## Maxx☢Power

KiwiRob said:


> I wish they would just add some passing lanes, not too hard to do and would stop people dangerously passing, trucks, bobils and camping vogons.


Exactly. Take the southern part of the E6 (Trondheim - Lillehammer) for example, which is a dreadful drive IMO. Ideally, it would become a motorway, but a better alignment with more frequent passing lanes would help _so_ much. Right now there's like two or three stretches with passing lanes for 400km. That's really not difficult nor very expensive, and should be an easy sell to a safety-concerned government. I know they've been adding some 1x2 better-aligned stretches primarily because of safety concerns, but why can't they _add some goddamn passing lanes?_ The non-motorway parts of the A13 in Switzerland, which is a wonderful drive, could serve as an example.


----------



## Ingenioren

They are upgrading and building new roads for 13 km north of Lillehammer atm - i think it will be 2+2 and 2+1 all the way. But i think more passing lanes should be added to road-projects, particulary E6 south of Melhus for example...


----------



## IceCheese

^^Same at Rv3 north of Elverum where they're doing lots of straghtenings and making new shoulders. Why not just ad a lane or two, for practicly no money at all?


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

^^ Because that would mean a call for another tube to places like Magerøya :lol:

Not many posts here currently, quite fitting to the low construction activity outside the south-eastern intercity triangle at the moment.

This is a video describing the latest developments on the E6 around Soknedalen, south of Trondheim. 
http://www.tronderbladet.no/tbtv/?id=112&***********&page=0

Mostly in Norwegian, but showing videos of the current miserable situation and renderings for the current (?) plans. It would be tragedy if this road is built without a center fence and passing opportunities, but I guess the most likely outcome is that the whole project is delayed by the municipal council because the local shops do not want to lose the through traffic. There is also something called funding that needs to be sorted out....


----------



## IceCheese

^^Well it is that (monster)bridge project in the west, that's going on, but it seems as most forumers discussing Norwegian highways, hangs out in the Norwegian section, and thereby that's where most of the updates will come.

E18 in Aust-Agder/Telemark seems to be a hot potato these days, though...


----------



## Sponsor

Who gets priority here? I pressume a car going on right lane. Or not?


----------



## Inconfidente

Isn't the narrrow shoulder combined with the guard rail a risk?


----------



## Fargo Wolf

Sponsor said:


> Who gets priority here? I pressume a car going on right lane. Or not?


I would be guessing that the right lane would merge left. I guess it all depends on how traffic is positioned as the lanes end.



Inconfidente said:


> Isn't the narrrow shoulder combined with the guard rail a risk?


Not necessarily. The guardrail simple separates the traffic. If you look closely, about half the shoulder is paved, so it's possible to pretty much get off the traveled portion of the road. I'm also guessing that the sight lines are excellent for whatever the posted limit is too, so a vehicle pulled over as far right as practicable, with hazard lights on, can be seen from a considerable distance.


----------



## Inconfidente

^^ Good then. That was my only worry. I thought the shoulder was too tight for a car.


----------



## Fargo Wolf

Inconfidente said:


> ^^ Good then. That was my only worry. I thought the shoulder was too tight for a car.


You have to look REALLY closely, but it can be done... You are right though, it would be on the tight side.


----------



## koloite

Sponsor said:


> Who gets priority here? I pressume a car going on right lane. Or not?


No, actually no-one gets priority. That is why the complete arrow is painted red, to indicate that vehicles in both lanes have equal priority (no priority). You are supposed to cooperate in order to get an efficient merge.

This is also normal in both Norway and Denmark at motorway entrances. You will see a sign that indicates that a motorway entrance is up ahead, and that the cars entering the motorway and the cars in the right lane of the motorway have equal priority.

This is the Norwegian version:









This is what it would look like if the right lane would have to merge with the left lane, giving priority to the vehicles in the left lane:


----------



## Sponsor

Didn't know about that. This equal equal priority would be risky solution in Poland.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

As far as I know, it is only used in Denmark and Norway. I'm not really a fan of it, I rather have clear rules about who has priority and who has not. It could mean trouble on busy motorways. That is why traffic on the motorway has always priority over traffic entering the motorway in other European countries.


----------



## Kjello0

ChrisZwolle said:


> As far as I know, it is only used in Denmark and Norway. I'm not really a fan of it, I rather have clear rules about who has priority and who has not. It could mean trouble on busy motorways. That is why traffic on the motorway has always priority over traffic entering the motorway in other European countries.


Why? You have a passing lane on your right. If you're to busy to you're supposed to change lane. This works perfectly in Norway. Even on roads with 60-70 000 AaDT.


----------



## Kjello0

KiwiRob said:


> I find the automated toll roads interesting, one of my cars always gets billed, the other one never does. We have been in Trondheim 4-5 times since the new toll system started, only been billed once when we took my car.


They sum up the tolls. You first get a bill when you've reached 250 kr. If not you get a bill 3 months afterwards.


----------



## katia72

ChrisZwolle said:


> As far as I know, it is only used in Denmark and Norway. I'm not really a fan of it, I rather have clear rules about who has priority and who has not. It could mean trouble on busy motorways. That is why traffic on the motorway has always priority over traffic entering the motorway in other European countries.


When the speed limit is ONLY 100 then there is no problem here i Norway.....but thats is my opinion.
*IT WOULD NEVER WORKED IN POLAND.*


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Even at 80 km/h, you don't want traffic braking all the time on a densely packed motorway when traffic entering the motorway has priority. It can create additional delays and congestion.


----------



## Ingenioren

It's fine to have merging lanes at the end of a motorway like in above posted photo, but under no circumstance should a motorway give right to an accesramp... hno:


----------



## IceCheese

ChrisZwolle said:


> Even at 80 km/h, you don't want traffic braking all the time on a densely packed motorway when traffic entering the motorway has priority. It can create additional delays and congestion.


For the first NO ONE HAS PRIORITY. Not the ones entering, not the ones already on the motorway. 

The whole point with an access lane is that you have a long stretch to match your speed with the current speed of the motorway. Then you and traffic on the motorway merge as best can on the motorway. If you give a little or the cars on the motorway give a little, that really doesn't matter. Eitherway no one will have to break in such high speeds. The merging stretch is LONG.
An alternate and also common especially on motorways with low traffic, is that the cars driving on the inner lane just go into the outer lane. This is what creates the most efficient traffic flow in motorway junctions.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

IceCheese said:


> For the first NO ONE HAS PRIORITY. Not the ones entering, not the ones already on the motorway.


Well, that is the problem in my opinion. Traffic rules need to be clear. Who is to blame in a side-by-side accident? 



> The whole point with an access lane is that you have a long stretch to match your speed with the current speed of the motorway. Then you and traffic on the motorway merge as best can on the motorway. If you give a little or the cars on the motorway give a little, that really doesn't matter. Eitherway no one will have to break in such high speeds. The merging stretch is LONG.


From what I've seen, the main problem is that a lot of people don't use more than 1/4th of the merging lane length, many go to the left as soon as they reach the mainline lanes, even if their speed is lower than that of the traffic on the motorway.



> An alternate and also common especially on motorways with low traffic, is that the cars driving on the inner lane just go into the outer lane. This is what creates the most efficient traffic flow in motorway junctions.


This happens often, but you cannot just go to the left all the time at a motorway that is approaching capacity. I reckon this doesn't happen in Norway all the time, but it could be problematic at motorways with high traffic volumes, such as around Oslo. At busy motorways, you will need as few turbulence as possible. There is a reason why electronic signs in the UK say "congestion ahead, stay in lane".


----------



## ElviS77

ChrisZwolle said:


> As far as I know, it is only used in Denmark and Norway. I'm not really a fan of it, I rather have clear rules about who has priority and who has not. It could mean trouble on busy motorways. That is why traffic on the motorway has always priority over traffic entering the motorway in other European countries.


The system is, if I remember correctly, also used in Sweden. Nonetheless, I agree, there should be a clear order of priority. It's not as though it doesn't work regarding merging, but, curiously enough, merging works better in Germany, the Netherlands and Belgium, for instance, countries with a clear priority rule...


----------



## Spikespiegel

ChrisZwolle said:


> Well, that is the problem in my opinion. Traffic rules need to be clear. Who is to blame in a side-by-side accident?


But there ARE clear and strict rules to merging in both Denmark and Norway.

Merging traffic has to adjust their speed so it matches the speed o nthe first lane of the motorway. Is this lane occupied only by trucks, then merging traffic has to adjust their speed to 80 km/h.

You have to merge in the order you arrive at the merging point. So if you have someone just in front of you to the side, he will get priority over you, regardless whether he is on the motorway or the merging lane.

A merging lane is considered part of the motorways first lane, and thus merging traffic are not allowed to overtake on the inside of traffic already on the motorway, just like people on the motorway aren't allowed to pass people on the merging lane, unless they change to the second lane of the motorway.


----------



## Maxx☢Power

I think it makes more sense that traffic entering a road should always yield to traffic already on it. The entire point of a motorway is to remove the need for drivers to have to react to traffic on intersecting roads (which an on ramp is). You can be nice and move over or slow down if that doesn't affect the traffic flow to let others join, but if you're on the motorway you should always have priority. Also if two regular driving lanes merge into one it should be clear which lane "disappears" so drivers in that lane can move to the other well ahead of the actual merge point.

(Denmark doesn't even have merging lanes in a lot of places, the ramp enters directly onto the rightmost lane)


----------



## ChrisZwolle

> (Denmark doesn't even have merging lanes in a lot of places, the ramp enters directly onto the rightmost lane)


Yes, and they also do not have proper merging lanes when you exit the motorway. I saw many exits around larger cities in Denmark where traffic was queued on the shoulder.


----------



## Maxx☢Power

I kind of like it though; you just kind of throw yourself off the motorway and then start thinking about braking (or just let gravity do the work, as these ramps are always uphill), as opposed to the turn-right/straighten-up/break with a "merge off" lane. (Not to mention stepping on the brakes when you realise your speed is way too high to make that cloverleaf turn with a 40 limit)


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

Maxx☢Power;64402369 said:


> I think it makes more sense that traffic entering a road should always yield to traffic already on it. The entire point of a motorway is to remove the need for drivers to have to react to traffic on intersecting roads (which an on ramp is). You can be nice and move over or slow down if that doesn't affect the traffic flow to let others join, but if you're on the motorway you should always have priority. Also if two regular driving lanes merge into one it should be clear which lane "disappears" so drivers in that lane can move to the other well ahead of the actual merge point.


The point of the motorway is to get rid of intersecting traffic, yes, but on motorways you still have to keep an eye on traffic traveling in the same direction as you, which merging traffic in fact is.

Actually I think the zipper rule (as we call it in Norway) is one of the few things the road authorities here got right. Nothing jams the flow of traffic as much a car stranded at the end of an entrance ramp in dense traffic. Not only the traffic coming from the ramp is blocked, eventually some nice blokes will brake and let the poor stranded guy, or the stranded guy/women gives up and heads into. But, since the stranded person enters the motorway (actuallyt this rule is also used for other roads in Norway) at zero speed, the traffic in the right lane almost have to stop as well. 

Another point is that when two lanes of the same road are merging, the capacity of both lanes can be used until the merging zone when using the zipper rule. When one lane has the priority, the other lane will typically be empty some distance ahead of the end of that lane. In heavy traffic, this distance could be quite long, limiting the capacity of the road, for instance the queing traffic in the surviving lane could block other entry / exit lanes.

In practice, the zipper rule only formalizes good driving practice. God knows that Norway, a land where people tend to meticulously follow the law (and pursue their rights) need such a rule. As far as I know, there are rarely accidents on places where the zipper rule applies. The reason is that traffic on both the main road and ramp know that they will be at fault if something happens (as it is difficult to prove who was first at the start of the merging zone...), and as such are forced to adapt to each other. This is much safer, IMO, than having unexperienced drivers stranded at the end of an entry lane.

On places where the entry ramp is short or the line of sight is short, the zipper rule is usually not used in Norway. The system in for instance Minnesota was quite similar, as far as I remember: Usually entry ramps merged into the freeway, but on short ramps or ramps with for instance bad curvature there was always a yield sign.

Regardless if the zipper rule applies or not, there will of course be a jam if too many cars try to enter the highway / motorway. A short term / cheap fix to assure better flow would be to set up a ramp meter, used with some success a couple of places in the US (and Norway).


----------



## Spikespiegel

54°26′S 3°24′E;64406971 said:


> In practice, the zipper rule only formalizes good driving practice. God knows that Norway, a land where people tend to meticulously follow the law (and pursue their rights) need such a rule. As far as I know, there are rarely accidents on places where the zipper rule applies. The reason is that traffic on both the main road and ramp know that they will be at fault if something happens (as it is difficult to prove who was first at the start of the merging zone...), and as such are forced to adapt to each other. This is much safer, IMO, than having unexperienced drivers stranded at the end of an entry lane.


I agree that the "Scandinavian merging rule" would not work many places outside Scandinavia. Especially not in a country like Italy or France. But here it just works. I've NEVER heard of any accidents that has happened in the merging lanes.



54°26′S 3°24′E;64406971 said:


> On places where the entry ramp is short or the line of sight is short, the zipper rule is usually not used in Norway. The system in for instance Minnesota was quite similar, as far as I remember: Usually entry ramps merged into the freeway, but on short ramps or ramps with for instance bad curvature there was always a yield sign.


In Denmark, ramps are usually long enough that even a piss-pot can reach the motorway speed (110/130kph) before they hit the merging zones. There are a few exceptions, but with the new refurbishment, Vejdirektoratet will fix them. One example is the Fløng eastbound ramp. There are still a few places where the ramp is too short to use the merge rule, and in thiese instances, Yield signs have been put up (I can think of one just north of Lyngby, southbound).


----------



## Ingenioren

There were supposed to add some of these lights on ramps to E39 in Stavanger, i don't know if it has been done yet. There used to be one on E6 near Halden when it was still a normal highway.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

There are ramp meters on E6 / Sandmoen in Trondheim.


----------



## diosandri

:drool:

The tourist project of national highways is wonderful. Amazing!
Must be declared World Heritage by UNESCO. Congratulations.


----------



## Fargo Wolf

IceCheese said:


> For the first NO ONE HAS PRIORITY. Not the ones entering, not the ones already on the motorway.
> 
> The whole point with an access lane is that you have a long stretch to match your speed with the current speed of the motorway. Then you and traffic on the motorway merge as best can on the motorway. If you give a little or the cars on the motorway give a little, that really doesn't matter. Eitherway no one will have to break in such high speeds. The merging stretch is LONG..


So, essentially, it's "driver co-operation" then. Everyone works together, to ensure a safe merge.


----------



## KiwiRob

Maxx☢Power;64402369 said:


> I think it makes more sense that traffic entering a road should always yield to traffic already on it.


I wish that were the case on all roads in Norway, all this yielding to cars entering roads only causes stop start traffic and confusion.


----------



## Maxx☢Power

KiwiRob said:


> I wish that were the case on all roads in Norway, all this yielding to cars entering roads only causes stop start traffic and confusion.


Well, isn't it the case for most roads? Except the very few motorways, that is.. Maybe not inside city suburbs built on a square grid where most of the time the yield to traffic coming from the right rule applies, but city traffic tends to be a lot of stop and go anyway..


----------



## Ingenioren

No not at all, the priority to the right is very common on roads with considerable importance aswell. And we don't know how to work it out, some drivers are comming from the right in 50km/h with one hand already on the horn while others will stop for all cars cause they are so unsure...


----------



## IceCheese

In Oslo's innercity, it surely is hard to keep track of (Maridalsveien comes to mind), but in most of Norway it's almost always given by the road you drive on whether it's a yield or no-yield road. Yellow midstripe usually mean non-yield.


----------



## Ingenioren

One other example, Professor Birkelandsvei, Grorud. A north-south crossing of the industrial valley (with stripes.):
http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=...noid=qPChyNYP3Fgi1-btaX8KTw&cbp=12,31.74,,0,5


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

*Trondheim Sluppen Update (Rv 706 / E6)*

A lot of the discussion regarding Norwegian highways now unfortunately seems to have moved to the national forum:
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?p=65854857#post65854857

Here is a short update from Trondheim / Sluppen. First a recap of the current situation and alternatives during planning:


54°26′S 3°24′E;46218381 said:


> From Bergen to Trondheim:
> 
> The by far most important - and problematic - area in the Trondheim traffic is Sluppen:





54°26′S 3°24′E;46218417 said:


> The picture in the previous post was shot facing south. The main arteria is the E6 coming from the southern suburbs and beyond, in Sluppen sluppen the E6 split in one arm going towards the city center (i.e. towards north / the phographer) and one arm going around the city (towards north/east at the bottom left. In addition, this is were rv 715, comes across the river on the infamous Sluppen bridge to connect to E6. Rv 715 is the main road for traffic coming the other side of the fjord (Fosen), but most of the traffic comes from the western suburbs of Trondheim (Byåsen). There is no other option for cars going east / west between this bridge and downtown several kms to the north. In addition to E6 and Rv 715, there are quite a few other roads coming to this area.
> 
> The two main problems of the area is quite evident in the picture shown above:
> 
> The Sluppen bridge (small bridge across river to the right) and sourrounding infrastructure is insufficient
> For traffic coming from the bypass E6 the single lane ramp for traffic going towards the south is under capacity.
> 
> Below is sketch of the current situation with traffic numbers from 2007 and with circles around the problematic areas. Since 2007 the population of Trondheim has increased by almost 6 %. For some reason north is to the left on this map:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Sluppen bridge was built as a temporary bridge substutiting another temporary bridge (?) as far back as 1954, and is only 6 m wide. At the east bank there is a bend so sharp that trucks and buses needs both lanes in order to enter the bridge. At the other end there is a traffic light, and add a lot of bicycles to this mix and you have serious traffic problem:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The road system on the west bank (Byåsen) side is not ideal either, and the result is many people make huge detours today in order to avoid the worst areas and times.
> 
> Hopefully, this will change to the better in a few years, at least there are now some plans on the table for new solutions and their financing (100 % toll, of course...)
> 
> The overall planned and U/C main road system of Trondheim is shown below:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The existing bypass E6 is shown in blue. Yellow and red roads are existing or U/C. The white road is the new planned Sluppen bridge and a refurbished road at the west bank. In addition, a four lane tunnel up to the Byåsen suburbs are planned (not shown). A more detailed / bigger map can be found here:
> http://www.vegvesen.no/binary?id=171301
> 
> The alternatives currently considered will be given below. Yellow is new / modified road, green colors are for bikes / pedestrians.
> *Alternative 0+*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This alternative just means that there will only be built a slightly widened and realigned Sluppen bridge and building a new roundabout. No solution for connecting the new Byåsen tunnel to the system.
> *Alternative 1*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here the new sluppen bridge is widened to four lanes, and the bridge is moved down the river a bit and a roundabout at the west bank connects the new bridge to the tunnel and the north-south road (Oslovegen) on the west bank. No lanes added to the single lane E6 ramp, but traffic from Sluppen going towards downtown are realigned.
> *Alternative 2a*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here also Oslo-vegen on the west bank will be four lanes, and through traffic on that road will be grade separated from the Sluppen bridge traffic. In addition all ramps on the E6 have at least two lanes. This is IMO the first solution that will fix most of the current problems. Notice also that the new bike route system is far better.
> *Alternative 2b*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More or less the same as alternative 2a, except the through way of E6 is changed from the branch going into the city to the bypass branch.
> *Alternative 3*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This alternative is fairly similar to 2a, except that the E6 goes down through a tunnel. As drawn here the E6-E6 interchange will have three levels. The alternative was suggested by the city in order to increase the area available for commercial development. In addition, this alternative keep the south/west road on the western bank (Oslovegen) as a two lane road, but keep the grade separation. In addition some ramps on the existing interestion on the bypass E6 in the NE corner of the map will be closed.
> 
> It will be exciting to see what the end result of this will be. Hopefully they will not be so short-sighted this time that they end up with alternative 0+ or 1, that wont solve anything in the long run. Also, I think there should be four lanes on the west bank road, as there is more than enough room since the houses close to that road anyway will be / has been demolished. Also other aspects of alternative 3 is suboptimal IMO. More area may be open for development, but that will also make future amendments to the system more difficult.







Kjello0 said:


> I wouldn't at all be surprised if they choose alternative 1. I would actually be by far more surprised if they actually choose alternative 2a which is by far the best solution of these. However, if Osloveien had four lanes on alternative 3 I would go for that instead.


^^Unfortunately, you will probably not be surprised, Kjello0, as it seems like Vegvesenet is now going for alternative 1, meaning essentially no improvement for this Gordic knot of Trondheim traffic. (Norwegian speakers can check here). True, the cost of alternative 1, which is expanded somwhat by adding an extra lane towards the round-about on the west side of the bridge, is estimated to be 383 M NOK (36 %) less than alternative 2A, but with alternative 1, it is estimated that the traffic (AADT) on that hardly 2+1 road west of the river will be 28 000 already in 2015! So much for keeping to the Norwegian standards calling for four lanes when traffic surpasses 12 000 AADT in 30 years time!

I.e., they predict that the tolls people are paying now are funding more traffic jams, not less. I am not sure if that even can be called short sighted. I mean, they actually know what is going to happen, but simply don't seem to think it is important that both people and the environment loses due to traffic jams.

Also for other trafficant groups (bicycles, pedestrians, PT), alt 2A is superior. Finally, the consequence of the four lane tunnel coming out of the hill directly west of the new bridge is currently not considered. They say they it should be considered only when the tunnel is planned in detail, which probably happen after construction start of the rest of the roads at Sluppen in a few years time. Needless to say, this is actually really short sighted....

The main excuse for choosing alternative 1 is that a four lane road (as in 2A) will be 3 m wider than the 2+1 alternative. It is claimed that this is disasterous for the forest right to the west from the road. To me this sounds like crap. That forest on the clay hillside most likely was not even there 60 years ago, and already has traffic/ railways on all sides, and anyway 3 m won't make a difference. In fact, whatever "protected" wildlife is in there probably will suffer more by suffocation due to the disasterously underdimensioned alt. 1 than alt. 2A. To me this is one of the least attractive areas of the city, but I guess the Vegvesenet figured that some at least half-way long-term solution would be impossible to swallow for the socialist national and local government currently in charge.... 


(Sorry for the long quote, I will remove it if anyone protests)


----------



## RV

Wow, I thought in Finland things go bad with ecologists etc crap. 28000 cars in 2015 on a 1+1/2+1 road with 1-laned roundabout with another 1+1-laned road? That means hours of jams!


----------



## IceCheese

54°26′S 3°24′E;66021257 said:


> A lot of the discussion regarding Norwegian highways now unfortunately seems to have moved to the national forum:
> http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?p=65854857#post65854857
> 
> Here is a short update from Trondheim / Sluppen. First a recap of the current situation and alternatives during planning:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ^^Unfortunately, you will probably not be surprised, Kjello0, as it seems like Vegvesenet is now going for alternative 1, meaning essentially no improvement for this Gordic knot of Trondheim traffic. (Norwegian speakers can check here). True, the cost of alternative 1, which is expanded somwhat by adding an extra lane towards the round-about on the west side of the bridge, is estimated to be 383 M NOK (36 %) less than alternative 2A, but with alternative 1, it is estimated that the traffic (AADT) on that hardly 2+1 road west of the river will be 28 000 already in 2015! So much for keeping to the Norwegian standards calling for four lanes when traffic surpasses 12 000 AADT in 30 years time!
> 
> I.e., they predict that the tolls people are paying now are funding more traffic jams, not less. I am not sure if that even can be called short sighted. I mean, they actually know what is going to happen, but simply don't seem to think it is important that both people and the environment loses due to traffic jams.
> 
> Also for other trafficant groups (bicycles, pedestrians, PT), alt 2A is superior. Finally, the consequence of the four lane tunnel coming out of the hill directly west of the new bridge is currently not considered. They say they it should be considered only when the tunnel is planned in detail, which probably happen after construction start of the rest of the roads at Sluppen in a few years time. Needless to say, this is actually really short sighted....
> 
> The main excuse for choosing alternative 1 is that a four lane road (as in 2A) will be 3 m wider than the 2+1 alternative. It is claimed that this is disasterous for the forest right to the west from the road. To me this sounds like crap. That forest on the clay hillside most likely was not even there 60 years ago, and already has traffic/ railways on all sides, and anyway 3 m won't make a difference. In fact, whatever "protected" wildlife is in there probably will suffer more by suffocation due to the disasterously underdimensioned alt. 1 than alt. 2A. To me this is one of the least attractive areas of the city, but I guess the Vegvesenet figured that some at least half-way long-term solution would be impossible to swallow for the socialist national and local government currently in charge....
> 
> 
> (Sorry for the long quote, I will remove it if anyone protests)


Statens Vegvesen Region Midt seems even more incompetent than theire collegues out here (only barely though:nuts.. But if the plan is out on hearing now, shouldn't you try to make yourself heard? Democracy and all that?


----------



## metasmurf

This is just pure madness. To put this in contrast, in my hometown they're widening an existing road to 2+2 (16,5m) and the AADT will be 12-15K 2015.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

IceCheese said:


> Statens Vegvesen Region Midt seems even more incompetent than theire collegues out here (only barely though:nuts.. But if the plan is out on hearing now, shouldn't you try to make yourself heard? Democracy and all that?


Perhaps, but I live an extremely busy life, with many commitments. But I have noted the due date in the beginning of December...


----------



## ElviS77

54°26′S 3°24′E;66021257 said:


> Unfortunately, you will probably not be surprised, Kjello0, as it seems like Vegvesenet is now going for alternative 1, meaning essentially no improvement for this Gordic knot of Trondheim traffic. (Norwegian speakers can check here). True, the cost of alternative 1, which is expanded somwhat by adding an extra lane towards the round-about on the west side of the bridge, is estimated to be 383 M NOK (36 %) less than alternative 2A, but with alternative 1, it is estimated that the traffic (AADT) on that hardly 2+1 road west of the river will be 28 000 already in 2015! So much for keeping to the Norwegian standards calling for four lanes when traffic surpasses 12 000 AADT in 30 years time!


And Osloveien is only part of the problem with the chosen alternative. The E6 link between Kroppanbrua and Omkjøringsveien also leaves a lot to be desired, particularly when it's pretty obvious that the Vegvesen and Trondheim kommune want to reduce traffic on Klæbuveien (right? It's been a while since I called Trondheim home...) towards Trondheim city centre. 2 direct inbound and outbound lanes do not really support such a concept. In short, the entire "ring road Trondheim" is going to be overcrowded from day one. 

Sure, I do understand budgetary constrains. But when one eventually receives the get-go for a massive project, it makes sense to build it efficient enough to resolve at least a few of the problems it faces on the opening day, at least.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

It looks like they are better in building bridges and tunnels across and under fjords than to improve the situation on busy urban roads.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

^^You can say that again.....


ElviS77 said:


> And Osloveien is only part of the problem with the chosen alternative. The E6 link between Kroppanbrua and Omkjøringsveien also leaves a lot to be desired, particularly when it's pretty obvious that the Vegvesen and Trondheim kommune want to reduce traffic on Klæbuveien (right? It's been a while since I called Trondheim home...) towards Trondheim city centre. 2 direct inbound and outbound lanes do not really support such a concept. In short, the entire "ring road Trondheim" is going to be overcrowded from day one.
> 
> Sure, I do understand budgetary constrains. But when one eventually receives the get-go for a massive project, it makes sense to build it efficient enough to resolve at least a few of the problems it faces on the opening day, at least.


There has not been access from Omkjøringsvegen (E6) to Klæbuveien for a number of years, and Klæbuveien itself is closed to traffic at several places. Perhaps you mean Bratsbergveien, Elgeseter gate or Sluppenveien? The latter will at least be closed to through traffic in most alternatives, whereas the traffic level on Elgeseter effectively is clamped as long as the half the lanes are closed to private cars. In any case, the connection between Kroppanbrua and Omkjøringsveien on E6 is a major difference between the alternative 1 and alternative 2a/2b/3. The former is basically no improvement from today's situation where the single lane creates jams that get worse every year, whereas the latter alternatives add a lane in each direction.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

I just stumbled over this figure, showing the formal phaces involved in Norwegian road construction:








In short, planning of a new road in Norway takes AT LEAST 9 years, before even construction can start....


----------



## Kjello0

10 years. Just fucking crazy! Seems like it's the municipalities that use most time. Three years on kommunedelplan and two years on reguleringsplan. Should be possible to do that in 1 year.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

That's faster than the Dutch average of 14 years (until recently).


----------



## Ingenioren

Street-view coverage drasticly improved now


----------



## metasmurf

With this updated street view of Norway, what strikes me is how many parts of the E6 in the north that only has one lane. I mean, I know many secondary roads here in the north of Sweden with, what I assume, lower AADT which are wider. Are there any plans to fix these one lane parts? I for one find it very strange that the main road connecting Norway doesn't have better standard.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

^^ Now you understand what Norwegian forum members are complaining about 

Though traffic volumes north of Steinkjer are probably pretty low on E6, most likely lower than on E4 in northern Sweden.


----------



## metasmurf

ChrisZwolle said:


> ^^ Now you understand what Norwegian forum members are complaining about
> 
> Though traffic volumes north of Steinkjer are probably pretty low on E6, most likely lower than on E4 in northern Sweden.


What I meant was secondary roads, E-roads and even Riksvägar aside, with lower AADT than E6 that have better standard.

Two examples:

http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=...npqyTI0HGAJtBunlYq8Nhg&cbp=12,208.98,,0,15.29

http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=...d=jfhsvcChttlWkwfrygxX8Q&cbp=12,176.5,,0,-4.2

These are roads in literally the middle of nowhere with no national importance whatsoever. They don't even have road numbers in google maps.


As compared to this, the main road through norway:

http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=...d=gydNgWC5Xm4NS8IF9Acp1g&cbp=12,38.87,,0,4.42

I really don't understand why a rich country can't have main roads in proper conditions. How are two trucks supposed to pass each other on a narrow road like that? No wonder they make huge detours through Sweden.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

Not only are the Swedish roads better, the distance is in fact shorter as well via Sweden if you want to drive from southern to Tromsø or thereabouts and nortwards. You will miss a lot of fantastic scenery, though....

Regarding E6, the quality is probably poorest through the third northernmst county, Nordland,metasmurf's example come from. Another examples are here and here from Majavatn in the southern end of the county (appears to be fixed).

However, if you take AADTs in consideration, some roads further south is IMO far worse. A few examples to follow.... 

Some examples from the main highway between Oslo and Trondheim (E6 /Rv 3), for none of them there are definitive widening plans afaik
Example 1
Example 2 (the bridge is only repaired, not widened!)
 Example 3
 Example 4
 Example 5

One example from the E14 connecting Trondheim with Sweden (no plans for a fix):
Example close to a fairly densely populated area in Norwegian terms, 12 km or so from Trondheim airport

One example from the (official) main Bergen - Oslo road. Improvements underway?

From the E134, Drammen-Haugesund, but also used for Oslo-Bergen.

From E39, main coastal highway between Trondheim-Ålesund (-Bergen-Kristiansund)

And, the "prime" example of Norwegian infrastructure must again be the 25 000 AADT or thereabouts Sluppen bridge within Trondheim...


----------



## MKA123

There are plans of improving the whole stretch of E6 and Rv3 from south of Trondheim to Oppland/Hedmark county border. This includes fixing of example 1, 2 and 3. Of course, not much is decided jet, but example 3 is in Statens vegvesens "handlingsplan" for 2010-2013 (as a part of moving E6 outside Soknedal), and the financing of that specific project is in fact governmental (according to the plan). Still, most of the projects on the stretch elsewhere is going to be partly toll financed, with some governmental financing (but I think it's a good idea to make one toll project for the whole stretch). What happens in Soknedal (ex. 3), is that the locals nearly oppose the project, because they want 2 (two) interchanges on about 500 metres (the road is planning to be moved away from the "city" centre, and have one interchange south of the "city" centre). So, the locals say that if they don't get two interchanges it's just okay to have the road as it is. Anyway, the politicians had "guts" to say yes to the project this week (a year after the project first was ment to be decided by the politicians). Of course, I see why the locals want two interchanges, but still I think only one is the best solution. Now, the building of the road hopefully will start in 2012, and complete in 2014-2015, and then example 3 will hopefully not be a part of E6 soon.

Regarding to example 1 and 2, things are much more "in the blue". It's a "KVU" (sort of "pre-plan") in production, see http://www.vegvesen.no/Vegprosjekter/e6opplandgrjaktoyen (unfortunately just in Norwegian), but hopefully the building of more of the projects on the stretch starts in some years (at least we can hope...). One of the things delaying one of the major projects, the improving of E6 Håggåtunnelen-Skjerdingstad to motorway, is that Bondelaget (Norwegian Agrarian Association) wants the road to go high up in the mountains, to save some agriculture land... Then the road will go in "no-where" and only those going the whole stretch from Håggåtunnelen to Skjerdingstad will in practice use it (Statens vegvesen says it's possible with a interchange between this points, but only a few cars will use the interchange if they are going to build it (if the road should go there)). I'm pretty sure the road will not be build there, I think they just want to say to Bondelaget that "We've studied it a lot, and we can't build the road there". Still, it's sad, the project will be delayed for minimum one year. And the Sluppen bridge will hopefully be built soon, as the project is a part of the (partly) toll financed Miljøpakken (which also includes improving E6 Jaktøyen-Tonstad to motorway).

And why we don't expand our roads in Norway? Simply because some of the people in the Ministry of Finance has calculated that we "lose" 43 øre for each (one) krone we invest in roads and railways. Everybody (at least almost everybody), except those who did the calculation, sees this as complete rubbish (well, I'll even include most politicians, because they mostly wants to invest more in infrastructure, but are not allowed to do that by the people in the Ministry of Finance...). But to build oil installations on the coast for 100 billions each year, is completely ok........................ (See for instance http://www.bygg.no/2010/12/investeringer-i-samferdsel-er-loennsomt, unfortunately just in Norwegian).

My first post here  (Sorry if I've some spelling mistakes, but I think that the facts are correct)


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

Welcome to the forum, MKA123!

Of course I am aware that there are plans. We are very "good" at planning in Norway. However, it seems much more difficult to actually construct the road. In the national transport plan, NTP 2010-2019, the only fix they actually halfway commit to is "Example 3" in E6 Soknedalen, as you say. However, if they cannot agree on the exact solution, nothing will happen for years even there. KVUs are in principle great, as it in theory forces the road authorities to see things in perspective and not only for a km at a time. But, as you can see in my post above, the planning in Norway even without KVUs take at least 9 years, so unfortunately KVUs might just delay any action even more. I remember they talked about fixing Soknedalen in the early 80s.....

Regarding the stretches of E6 which in my mind should be fixed first are E6 Tonstad-Jaktøyen (Trondheim / Melhus) and Skjerdingstad - Håggåtunnelen (Melhus). These stretches have much higher traffic than the examples I showed, in the former case up to 28 000 AADT on a two-lane road. Tonstad - Jaktøyen is fully planned, but NTP prescribes construction only with 100% + vat=125 % toll for building that road, which is politcal suicide, so nothing will happen. Regarding, Skjerdingstad-Håggåtunnelen, they have not even managed to complete high level plan after all these years....

Oslo-Trondheim is by the way the most trafficated long distance freight route of Norway:








Most of the truck traffic (pink color) follows Rv 3 (roughly 90 % as far as I remember)


----------



## MKA123

54°26′S 3°24′E;68750529 said:


> Welcome to the forum, MKA123!


Thanks!

And I thought you were aware of the plans, I just wanted to explain (to others) that at least something is going on. Even though I don't think it's necessary to plan so much as showed in the "map" in your earlier post on some of the bad points (needing upgrading) since that's quite "simple" stuff needing to be done there (simple widening, improving the curves etc.), I don't expect much to happen on at least a couple of years on the stretch Støren-Oppland/Hedmark, and not Håggåtunnelen-Skjerdingstad either. But, Håggåtunnelen-Skjerdingstad is both highly trafficked and it's quite a lot of accidents on this stretch (as I'm sure you're aware of). As a consequence of that, I hope the planning goes quite fast, but honestly, I don't believe in that...

As for Tonstad-Jaktøyen it's _planned_ to start building on the first section, Tonstad-Sentervegen, in october 2011 (with planned opening in 2014), but this is Norway... (Still, it's quite a lot pressure on the parts behind "Miljøpakken" (Trondheim kommune, Sør-Trøndelag fylkeskommune og Statens vegvesen) to make this project quickly finish, since the toll on this stretch is quite unpopular...)


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

That is correct, but Tonstad-Sentervegen is only 1 km long. Even in Norwegian terms this is not a very impressive four year progress for a toll financed project. The rest of the project is in the blue. (Remember that it is mainly out-of-town voters that complain about Klett. The Trondheim politicians are not accountable to those...)

Back to everyday reality of Norwegian roads. We are now again at the time of year when foreign trucks learn the reality of Norwegian roads the hard way. It is fairly easy for an unskilled / unprepared truck to block the southern entrance to Trondheim (the aforementioned E6 Tonstad-Jaktøyen like on yesterday (Sunday)
Video

Fv (formerly Rv) 714 is called the "Salmon Road" because almost all of Sør-Trøndelag's salmon export, worth more than 4 billion NOK, passes this way. This is what the trucks have to endure: yet another steep a steep, narrow, and winding road:








Quite often ending up like on last Friday:








I.e., the road being closed for hours, with absolutely no alternative routes available.

The good news is that something is actually happening here, through tolls of course, but nevertheless it seems like most of the current 58 km will be fixed. Part of the road will also get new alignment with bridges an tunnels, such that the new length will be 45 km. Construction has just started on a smaller (the worst?) stretch.
Map:









Here is a animation for some of the future realigned parts.


----------



## JeremyCastle

*Auto insurance in Norway*

Hi all,

Figured this might be the right place for these questions(if maybe a bit off topic). My wife and I might move to Norway this summer(she is Norwegian). We're currently living in the UK. I have my British driving licence now, as well as my Californian drivers license. My wife has never owned a car, even though she's had her Norwegian drivers license since 2003. I'm wondering the following.

First, What is the maximum amount of time I can keep a British, or for that matter, or foreign car in Norway? What I am hearing from people is that I can drive that car in Norway for up to 1 year. After that, I must either stop driving it, or convert it to Norwegian plates.(I love trying to pass a Tine milk truck on a narrow mountain road being sitting right side of the car!!) Can someone confirm this or is the time amount different?

My 2nd question is, anyone have any good tips on cheap car insurance? I know that "cheap" and "Norway" don't sometimes go together real well, but want to get a sense of what realistic prices my wife and I can expect to pay. Again, I am "hearing" that around NOK 10.000 a year is normal. Is this a right amount or is it off? What are some reputable Norwegian companies that charge decent rates?

Thirdly, how will the insurance companies look at me in terms of rates? Will they take my 1 year driving in the UK(the time I've had my British licence, but drove the legal year before that on my Californian license) into account since Norway is part of the EEA? Is there anyway that they can take my California driving record into account(15 years of no accidents, and only 1 speeding ticket).

Appreciate any info.


----------



## DanielFigFoz

I don't think that the UK driving licence will ever be a problem, and I would think that it probably counts the same as a Norwegian one, as they have to adopt most EU law anyway. As for the CA record, I´m really not sure but it would most likely be the same as whatever happened to you in the UK.


----------



## JeremyCastle

Not much happening on this thread lately I guess... :-/


----------



## ChrisZwolle

It's not the most active H&A thread no. 

From what I've heard and read, the British insurance premiums are insane compared to most other European countries, but "cheap" and "Norway" are not two words regularly used in one sentence, so I don't really know about that.


----------



## katia72

My friends moved from Ireland to Oslo for approx. 1 year ago. They had a used car with UK plates. Now they try to get rid of it because its too expensive to get Norwegian plates on it. They found out that it is cheaper to lease a new car and even get 20% discount on the insurance. It will cost them around. 2600kr per month.


----------



## katia72

JeremyCastle said:


> Hi all,
> 
> Figured this might be the right place for these questions(if maybe a bit off topic). My wife and I might move to Norway this summer(she is Norwegian). We're currently living in the UK. I have my British driving licence now, as well as my Californian drivers license. My wife has never owned a car, even though she's had her Norwegian drivers license since 2003. I'm wondering the following.
> 
> First, What is the maximum amount of time I can keep a British, or for that matter, or foreign car in Norway? What I am hearing from people is that I can drive that car in Norway for up to 1 year. After that, I must either stop driving it, or convert it to Norwegian plates.(I love trying to pass a Tine milk truck on a narrow mountain road being sitting right side of the car!!) Can someone confirm this or is the time amount different?
> 
> My 2nd question is, anyone have any good tips on cheap car insurance? I know that "cheap" and "Norway" don't sometimes go together real well, but want to get a sense of what realistic prices my wife and I can expect to pay. Again, I am "hearing" that around NOK 10.000 a year is normal. Is this a right amount or is it off? What are some reputable Norwegian companies that charge decent rates?
> 
> Thirdly, how will the insurance companies look at me in terms of rates? Will they take my 1 year driving in the UK(the time I've had my British licence, but drove the legal year before that on my Californian license) into account since Norway is part of the EEA? Is there anyway that they can take my California driving record into account(15 years of no accidents, and only 1 speeding ticket).
> 
> Appreciate any info.


My friends moved from Ireland to Oslo for approx. 1 year ago. They had a used car with UK plates. Now they try to get rid of it because its too expensive to get Norwegian plates on it. They found out that it is cheaper to lease a new car and even get 20% discount on the insurance. It will cost them around. 2600kr per month.


----------



## Kjello0

1. If you plan to establish in Norway permanent it's in general not allowed to use any foreign car in Norway. The toll department can give you a temporary allowance, but I doubt that last more than a month. 1 year is the limit if you're only temporary living in Norway. 

2. It all depends on what type of insurance you want, what type of car you have and of course at what bonus level you get. But even with an older car, only the required responsibility insurance and the start bonus of 20 % will cost 5-7000 with a normal driving distance (20 000 km).

I paid 3 247 kr back in October for the required responsibility insurance with 50 % bonus and 12 000 km on a 94 Opel Vectra 2.0i. 

So for a newer car and hence a bigger insurance it will probably easy come up in 10 000. Even with a higher bonus rate.

Gjensidige, IF and Tryg (former TrygVesta) is the big guys in insurance. But asking as many as possible will of course save you money.

Most insurance companies in Norway give you an additional bonus if you have several insurances in the same company. When I got my current insurance back in 2007 I first went to IF as my local bank use IF. Then I found out that the total insurance price would be lower if I in addition to the car insurance bought a travel insurance.

3. How the insurance company will look at your drivers licence I have no clue. But I will find it strange if you're treated like if you just got your first car and recently your licence. But I would also be surprised if you're treated like if you've lived in Norway the whole time.


----------



## JeremyCastle

Thanks Kjell! That helps. Appreciate it.


----------



## Jeroen669

Are you talking about monthly rates here? €300 - €400+ per month for car insurance only would be totally insane imo. :hammer:


----------



## JeremyCastle

I'm pretty sure the prices are yearly, not monthly... thankfully.


----------



## IceCheese

Jeroen669 said:


> Are you talking about monthly rates here? €300 - €400+ per month for car insurance only would be totally insane imo. :hammer:


Who pays their car insurance monthly?:bash:


----------



## ChrisZwolle

I do, it's quite normal in the Netherlands to pay these things monthly. You're also not getting your paycheck just once per year, do you?


----------



## DanielFigFoz

Jeroen669 said:


> Are you talking about monthly rates here? €300 - €400+ per month for car insurance only would be totally insane imo. :hammer:


I know that Norway isn't cheap, but I don't think it's that expensive :lol:


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

JeremyCastle said:


> Not much happening on this thread lately I guess... :-/


Most Norwegians seem to post in the national thread instead:
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?p=70838105#post70838105
(but even there the activity is low)


JeremyCastle said:


> Hi all,
> My 2nd question is, anyone have any good tips on cheap car insurance? I know that "cheap" and "Norway" don't sometimes go together real well, but want to get a sense of what realistic prices my wife and I can expect to pay. Again, I am "hearing" that around NOK 10.000 a year is normal. Is this a right amount or is it off? What are some reputable Norwegian companies that charge decent rates?


I have never paid that much, and I have had fairly big cars which I generally drive 20 000 km or more. Currently I believe I pay around 5000- But then I have 75 % off due to my good driving record. Note however, that insurance prices depend on a lot of different factors.

Generally, having a car is incredibly expensive in Norway, however, insurance is not that much more than in other countries I have lived in. Try Codan ( http://www.codanforsikring.no/ ). They have almost always offered me the best rates.


> Thirdly, how will the insurance companies look at me in terms of rates? Will they take my 1 year driving in the UK(the time I've had my British licence, but drove the legal year before that on my Californian license) into account since Norway is part of the EEA? Is there anyway that they can take my California driving record into account(15 years of no accidents, and only 1 speeding ticket).
> 
> Appreciate any info.


This is an extremely importan point in terms of rates. With no driving record you start with 20 % reduction from the "full price". It takes several years to earn 75 % like I have. Hence, you should get your UK and US insurance company to write a letter confirming your driving record. In my personal experience this is enough, go shopping to another insurance company if the first one is difficult. Once your driving record is accepted by one company, it will be accepted by all others. Small speed offences do not count.


----------



## katia72

IceCheese said:


> Who pays their car insurance monthly?:bash:



I pay montly about 650NOK


----------



## JeremyCastle

And Katia, do you have a good driver discount, and what size car do you drive? Is NOK 650 per month a "normal" insurance amount?


----------



## Pannyers

650 Noorse kronen (NOK) = 82,2513334 euro's

I pay for my Opel Tigra-B TwinTop: € 55,- monthly (in the Netherlands).


----------



## katia72

JeremyCastle said:


> And Katia, do you have a good driver discount, and what size car do you drive? Is NOK 650 per month a "normal" insurance amount?


I have a BMW 118d (2009) 70% discount in Sparebank1. I think its OK deal.


----------



## Ingenioren

New glomma bridge at 4:14


----------



## sotonsi

Hi guys, does anyone know if the E16 extension to Sweden has happened? It goes, AFAICS, from Hønefoss, via the Rv35 to the E6, then Rv2 and Rv200 to the border (rather than the E18-Rv190-E6-Rv2-Rv200 route that http://e16.se has).

Also, is the leftover Hønefoss-Oslo section to be renumbered (say as an extension of Rv7)?


----------



## IceCheese

The answer to the first question is no. There has to be an application to the AGR first, which I don't think has been sent yet. The Kløfta - Kongsvinger project is still refered to by the road authiorities as Rv2.

To the second question, it will probably still be signposted as E16, but as a sidearm. This is due to a more or less political project for connecting all the biggest cities by E-routes.


----------



## sotonsi

IceCheese, thanks for your answers - that's what I had suspected, but didn't have confirmed.


IceCheese said:


> There has to be an application to the AGR first, which I don't think has been sent yet.


I only asked the question because it's been approved - and expected to enter into force 2 months ago. First it was proposed and approved (page 10 and Annex II); and then a year later, you get the following (page 9) being said: "The amendments proposed by Hungary, Norway-Sweden and Turkey approved in Annex II to document ECE/TRANS/SC.1/388 are expected to enter into force on 15 December 2010."


----------



## IceCheese

sotonsi said:


> IceCheese, thanks for your answers - that's what I had suspected, but didn't have confirmed.
> I only asked the question because it's been approved - and expected to enter into force 2 months ago. First it was proposed and approved (page 10 and Annex II); and then a year later, you get the following (page 9) being said: "The amendments proposed by Hungary, Norway-Sweden and Turkey approved in Annex II to document ECE/TRANS/SC.1/388 are expected to enter into force on 15 December 2010."


Well, then, I have to recheck my sources!:lol:
I thought after reading the national transportation plan that the process would be a bit lengthy, but I guess it weren't. But I found an other document now conserning an other part of E16, dated from February 7th, where they refer to the renumbering. Basicly the document states they don't expect any significant change in traffic numbers, but as a bi-sentence it says:



> Omnummereringen kan bli gjennomført i 2011


So the renumbering seems to be imminent!

Source: http://www.vegvesen.no/_attachment/197069/binary/383502


----------



## metasmurf

Do we really need more E-roads? Imo, they should focus on fixing all substandard parts on the existing E-roads, both in Norway and in Sweden before deciding for new ones. There should be a minimum requirement width set to 8m for E-roads, which shouldn't be too unrealistic or unprofitable since E-roads are important transit roads.


----------



## Ingenioren

It's probably time to introduce a new lettering to separate E16s from E16w when they split to southbound and westbound route by Hønefoss then? Having 3 directions on E16 may be quite confusing i think.


----------



## Ingenioren

*Fv557 Bergen Ringroad west, step 2 starts construction*

Opening in summer 2015. It will be a 3,8km continuation of motorway-tunnel going north from first 
building step aswell as connecting ramps in the south and junction with Rv555(Sotra Motorway) 
and local road in the northern end. Bergen Ringroad west is divided into 3 building steps 
and will be a 10km motorway with 2 long twin-tube tunnels connecting Rv555 and Rv580(Airport road.) 


















Sandeide, Connection with tunnel in step 1.









Liavatnet, Junction with Rv555. This will be the first fully grade-free junction between 2 motorways in Norway.

It may also be the first county road in Norway with motorway status, although we never seem to
know in advance whether motorway signs will be used or not in this country. I guess it will have 80km/h limit either way.


----------



## Kjello0

metasmurf said:


> There should be a minimum requirement width set to 8m for E-roads, which shouldn't be too unrealistic or unprofitable since E-roads are important transit roads.


The minimum standard set for European Routes in Norway is 8,5 meters. But when you use under 4 billion a year on new roads it will actually take forever to upgrade the whole network. Especially since new roads are only designed for 20 years a time, with a very low growth. Which means that many new roads is outdated after 15 years. In my opinion most of the current European Routes in Norway should have a minimum standard of 11,5 meters. As in a such standard.
1,5+3,75+1+3,75+1,5









With the rest (read Northern Norway) a 9 meter standard.
1+3,5+3,5+1


----------



## Ingenioren

Bridge-concepts for E39 Sognefjord crossing:

3,7km span suspension bridge:









Floating potong bridge, 70m tall:









Pipe bridge:








(Illustration is wrong since it will require dual tubes for safety.)

Or a combination of these concepts.

Article(Norwegian):
http://www.nrk.no/nyheter/distrikt/nrk_sogn_og_fjordane/1.7520660


----------



## ElviS77

Ingenioren said:


> Bridge-concepts for E39 Sognefjord crossing:
> 
> 3,7km span suspension bridge:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Floating potong bridge, 70m tall:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pipe bridge:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (Illustration is wrong since it will require dual tubes for safety.)
> 
> Or a combination of these concepts.
> 
> Article(Norwegian):
> http://www.nrk.no/nyheter/distrikt/nrk_sogn_og_fjordane/1.7520660


The worst thing is that I don't think these ideas are as far-fetched as they seem, even though we're not talking huge AADT figures. The idea of a ferry-free E39 is important to many Western Norwegian politicians, and it seems to have at least some support even in the Oslo bureaucracy. Interesting, even though I believe there are quite a few more worthwhile projects to spend billions on...


----------



## MKA123

JeremyCastle said:


> The argument that something works fine, why replace it could be applied for almost everything that has been supplanted by better technology. Propellor planes were fine, why use jets? Big fat tv's from the 90's are fine, why do we need thinner ones? Candle light works fine, why replace them with electric light bulbs?
> 
> I don't buy the argument. White boards are easier to see what is written, easier to clean, doesn't have all that yucky dust flying everywhere, etc... It is a new piece of technology that is more efficient and frankly better than the older technology.


For instance: Most people I know didn't buy new, thinner TVs at once when they became avilable in stores. They bought it when they _needed_ a new TV.

Easier to see? Well, that depends on how good the pen used is. Most of the pens the teachers uses are bad ones...
Easier to clean? Yes, that's correct (unless you use your hand to clean it, but even that works better than cleaning white chalk with your hand...)
And, yes you're right about that you don't have dust with that.

But another problem with white boards is the use of permanent markers on it. Yes, I know you can erase even that - but not all teacher knows that.
But yes, you're right: White boards _are_ better than black/green boards. But that's not the largest problem in Norwegian schools. New schools are build almost continuous, and there, I think, only white boards are used. So, when all schools are upgraded or rebuilt, there are only white boards used. But I see the point that you could buy new boards now, and then move them to the new school when that one is built. Yes, I agree - but as I said earlier I really think other stuff are more important to change in Norwegian schools.

But if you got the money, I don't see it as bad to remove the black/green boards and put in new white boards. But if that does it necessary to fire a teacher (and that's the reality in a lot of Norwegian municipalities), I see it as wrong.

Back to the topic:



IceCheese said:


> Bad bad bad badhno: Not to sound cold hearted, but I'd imagine the cost to the society by increasing travel time on large stretches by 12,5 %, is far much higher than just 10-15 deaths or serious injuries (D/SI). "10-15" is also within the statistical error of injury data, and it will be impossible to meassure the affect of this mean.
> 
> But this doesn't matter!:banana: The Norwegian Storting has made a legal decission that we shall have *none* deaths or serious injuries on Norwegian roads *what so ever*!!! Utopia, here we come!


I don't agree. With the reduced costs (economic and non-economic) I think it will go in "0". And when it goes in "0", I think the best is to save someone's life. _But_ the thing I'm afraid of is that this will reduce the focus on building new roads. Let's just hope it doesn't...

I haven't read "nullvisjonen" ("zero deaths and zero seriously injured"), but I don't think they necessarily mean that there should be no deads and seriously injured one the roads _at all_. I think they mean that the traffic system should not "kill" anyone. F.i. you still have those who uses the road to commit suicide. Sad enough, it's hard to prevent that.


----------



## MKA123

The project that will investigate the possibilities of a E39 without any ferries is "officially" started:
http://www.vegvesen.no/Vegprosjekter/ferjefriE39


----------



## Ingenioren

Best road-project ever :cheers:










I did think an extended Kvivsvegen would mean Voldafjord-crossing and Nordfjord-crossing were no longer necessary...


----------



## JeremyCastle

Ingenioren said:


> Best road-project ever :cheers:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I did think an extended Kvivsvegen would mean Voldafjord-crossing and Nordfjord-crossing were no longer necessary...


The thought of how much it will cost in tolls from Stavanger to Trondheim scares the living daylights out of me!


----------



## Ingenioren

Sure, but you are today paying for ferries so i guess they will adjust downpayment period so that the fares doesn't increase compared to ferry tickets price.


----------



## JeremyCastle

Ingenioren said:


> Sure, but you are today paying for ferries so i guess they will adjust downpayment period so that the fares doesn't increase compared to ferry tickets price.


What about the 19 year old village boy who didn't finish school? What will he do for work without the ferries?


----------



## JeremyCastle

Ingenioren said:


> Sure, but you are today paying for ferries so i guess they will adjust downpayment period so that the fares doesn't increase compared to ferry tickets price.


How about the government take more than 1 or 2 percent of the oil fund, to pay for the road, so people don't have to pay any tolls? :bash:


----------



## Shifty2k5

JeremyCastle said:


> What about the 19 year old village boy who didn't finish school? What will he do for work without the ferries?


Maybe he can peel bananas :lol:


----------



## Hansadyret

Ingenioren said:


> I agree with you that we should move E39 further west than it is now, there is also an alternative that is 20 years old via Sollund:


They should just keep it as it is. The road from Bergen to Lavik-Oppdedal are getting better, and they have started on new projects on the other side of the Sognefjord as well. Rerouting it further west will mean lots of new expensive roadprojects on each side of the fjord.
The total cost of rerouting it will probably be much higher than a future suspension bridge at the current location and who knows what new technologies may come forward in the next 20-30 years. This fjordcrossing will probably be the last of the "big ones" anyway.


----------



## Hansadyret

ChrisZwolle said:


> Uhm, a 3.7 km span is almost double the current longest span for a suspension bridge. The bridge towers would need to be incredibly high.


Around 400m high bridgetowers is needed I've heard.


----------



## Oslo 5

*Autobahn isn’t safer*



JeremyCastle said:


> The stats I've seen show that Germany has an equal or better road accident level than Norway. Can anyone confirm this? Also, here is an article (in Norwegian) that I have that shows that increasing speed limits in Denmark and Sweden DID NOT increase the number of accidents. http://www.ha-halden.no/motor/article5375313.ece (Google Chrome automatically translates it into any major language you want.)
> 
> QUOTE]
> 
> No, I don’t think anyone can. No stats I have seen prove that (and I have seen a few). People shouldn’t confuse the different between accidents numbers and accident severity either. While the accident severity is on its way down in Norway (last year we had the fewest fatalities on Norwegian roads since 1955), the accident numbers are in fact rather constant. Of course, that the accident numbers is constant doesn’t say that the number of accidents isn’t going down statistically (the are going down to since the volume of traffic is rising). Apart from that, it’s very complicated to compare Norwegian and German stats, Norway has a small motorway network with mostly moderate traffic, while Germany has a large and heavy trafficked system.
> 
> http://www.etsc.eu/map-of-europe/?country=Norway


----------



## Kjello0

Hansadyret said:


> They should just keep it as it is. The road from Bergen to Lavik-Oppdedal are getting better, and they have started on new projects on the other side of the Sognefjord as well. Rerouting it further west will mean lots of new expensive roadprojects on each side of the fjord.
> The total cost of rerouting it will probably be much higher than a future suspension bridge at the current location and who knows what new technologies may come forward in the next 20-30 years. This fjordcrossing will probably be the last of the "big ones" anyway.


No they shouldn't. In the long run, 30-40 years, most of those are useless. E 39 should follow an outer corridor all the way from Bergen to Ålesund (and to Halsa in north).
Here's my proposal of a whole new E 39 between Ålesund and Bergen. With two alternatives to cross Sognefjorden. The total length would be between 280 and 300 km depending on which alternative is chosen for the Sognefjord crossing. Compared to the 360 km (excluding ferries) it is today. Travel time would be down to 3 hours and 30 minutes, compared to the 6 hours today if you hit the ferries good. 


















Using alternative 1 with a bridge over Sognefjorden my estimate is that the total cost will be about 68,5 billion NOK. That being four lanes on all bridges and tunnels, and mainly high standard two lane road the rest. The exception being Spjelkavik - Hareid and Åsane - Knarvik where a four lane motorway is needed.

Sognefjord bridge 3,1 km : 15 billion
Storfjord bridge 3,1 km : 15 billion
Tunnels 83,7 km (150k/meter) : 12,5 billion
Rovdefjord bridge 2 km : 8 billion
Nordfjord bridge 1,7 km : 6 billion
Førdefjord bridge 1 km : 3 billion
Masfjord bridge 750 m : 2 billion
Motorway Spjelkavik - Ulsteinvik 20 km (100k/meter) : 2 billion
Motorway Åsane - Knarvik 10 km (100k/meter) : 1 billion
New Nordhordland Bridge : 3 billion
Rest of the route 66,5 km (15k/meter) : 1 billion

Total cost : 68,5 billion NOK.

That's only 3,425 billion NOK each year for 20 years.

I doubt that a renovation of the current corridor will be that much cheaper. And being a much worse alternative it's clear what should be chosen.


----------



## JeremyCastle

Oslo 5 said:


> JeremyCastle said:
> 
> 
> 
> The stats I've seen show that Germany has an equal or better road accident level than Norway. Can anyone confirm this? Also, here is an article (in Norwegian) that I have that shows that increasing speed limits in Denmark and Sweden DID NOT increase the number of accidents. http://www.ha-halden.no/motor/article5375313.ece (Google Chrome automatically translates it into any major language you want.)
> 
> QUOTE]
> 
> No, I don’t think anyone can. No stats I have seen prove that (and I have seen a few). People shouldn’t confuse the different between accidents numbers and accident severity either. While the accident severity is on its way down in Norway (last year we had the fewest fatalities on Norwegian roads since 1955), the accident numbers are in fact rather constant. Of course, that the accident numbers is constant doesn’t say that the number of accidents isn’t going down statistically (the are going down to since the volume of traffic is rising). Apart from that, it’s very complicated to compare Norwegian and German stats, Norway has a small motorway network with mostly moderate traffic, while Germany has a large and heavy trafficked system.
> 
> http://www.etsc.eu/map-of-europe/?country=Norway
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you increase speed limits(not decrease them), yet improve road quality and safety, and have a variable speed limit in those areas where the limit is 90,100 or higher (speed limit is lowered in bad weather), I suspect accidents will come down. (regardless of size of road)
> 
> In narrow 2 lane roads here in the UK(and also in Germany), you have 100km limits much of the time, and there isn't mass numbers of accidents. In Norway, due to the changing weather extremes, you can simply raise of lower the limit depending on weather it is sunny, rainy, snowy, etc... The fact that Germany has a huge amount of traffic compared to Norway with much faster speed limits, yet an equal or lower rate of accidents should tell the Norwegian government something. Yes, I understand the weather aspect, but that again can be taken into account with electronic variable speed limits. I NEVER HEAR that discussed by any Norwegian official. If they have, give me the link please.
> 
> I can't believe how naive the Norwegian transport department is in thinking that speed is what we need to kill(not pun intended). They should just ban driving altogether if they are serious about no more accidents.
Click to expand...


----------



## Hansadyret

Kjello0 said:


> No they shouldn't. *In the long run, 30-40 years, most of those are useless.*


It is? The traffic on this road is low and it's not like the trafficnumbers are increasing very much either, so I don't see the big need for four lane tunnels and bridges outside of Åsane-Knarvik.

I don't see a rerouting to the west as realistic anymore as all of the work are being invested in the inner route. And as mentioned the road between Bergen and sognefjorden(E39) is actually not bad at all considering the trafficnumbers with a few exceptions that are allready in the NTP. As mentioned they have started upgrading the road between Førde and Sognefjorden as well.

Latest:


> Måndag vert det nytt møte om konseptvalutgreiinga for E39 mellom Skei og Ålesund. I dette møtet vert det lagt fram opplysningar som syner at det indre alternativet er samfunnsøkonomisk mest lønsamt. Indre line er 87 km frå Skei til Volda, gir 66 minutts køyretid og er kostnadsrekna til 4,5 milliardar kroner.
> Indre line går i tunnel under Utvikfjellet og veg i dagen til Innvik. Etter Innvik går vegen inn i ny tunnel til Frøholm. Litt oppe i fjellsida går den over i hengebru over Nordfjord til Svarstad. Ei bru som vil gå 70 meter over vassflata og dermed gi klaring for cruiseskipa på veg til og frå Olden. Ved Svarstad vil vegen gå inn i ny tunnel under Langesethøgda og kome ut i dagen att i Markane. Deretter går vegen inn i ny tunnel frå Øyebakken til Grodås for så å knyte seg til Kvivsvegen.


http://www.fjordingen.no/nyhende/article315522.ece


----------



## ElviS77

JeremyCastle said:


> Oslo 5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you increase speed limits(not decrease them), yet improve road quality and safety, and have a variable speed limit in those areas where the limit is 90,100 or higher (speed limit is lowered in bad weather), I suspect accidents will come down. (regardless of size of road)
> 
> In narrow 2 lane roads here in the UK(and also in Germany), you have 100km limits much of the time, and there isn't mass numbers of accidents. In Norway, due to the changing weather extremes, you can simply raise of lower the limit depending on weather it is sunny, rainy, snowy, etc... The fact that Germany has a huge amount of traffic compared to Norway with much faster speed limits, yet an equal or lower rate of accidents should tell the Norwegian government something. Yes, I understand the weather aspect, but that again can be taken into account with electronic variable speed limits. I NEVER HEAR that discussed by any Norwegian official. If they have, give me the link please.
> 
> I can't believe how naive the Norwegian transport department is in thinking that speed is what we need to kill(not pun intended). They should just ban driving altogether if they are serious about no more accidents.
> 
> 
> 
> There is no doubt that divided highways are safer than undivided ones. It is also pretty clear that higher speed increases the severity of any given accident. Most serious research also indicates quite clearly that a considerable increase in average speed on a given stretch of road leads to more accidents. Nonetheless, that is no excuse for not improving road quality and that better roads combined with a similar traffic culture will lead to fewer and less severe accidents - even if travel speed is moderately higher (see Sweden vs Norway, for instance).
> 
> Variable speed limits make sense, but that's pretty expensive and completely unrealistic outside the busiest sections of highways/motorways. It is also worth noting that more people are killed on Norwegian roads in winter than in summer, even when traffic volumes are taken into consideration.
Click to expand...


----------



## ChrisZwolle

The speed limits are already pretty low in Norway. I'd say the inferior road design of some long-distance routes is the main problem.


----------



## Fargo Wolf

ChrisZwolle said:


> The speed limits are already pretty low in Norway. I'd say the inferior road design of some long-distance routes is the main problem.


I wouldn't say inferior, so much as outdated. Sure, they COULD build /upgrade many highways to allow for a higher speed, but they don't. At the same time though, I think the lower speed limit helps in reducing accidents, especially in such a mountainous country.


----------



## Ingenioren

*Foreign contractors likely to win contracts for Dalsfjord bridge*


















Looks like Dutch HSM BV will be mounting steel while German Bilfinger Berger will poor concrete since they had the cheapest bids for this huge bridge to nowhere.
http://www.vegvesen.no/Vegprosjekte...sopningar+på+fv.+609+Dalsfjordbrua.205056.cms


----------



## Ingenioren

Fargo Wolf said:


> I wouldn't say inferior, so much as outdated. Sure, they COULD build /upgrade many highways to allow for a higher speed, but they don't. At the same time though, I think the lower speed limit helps in reducing accidents, especially in such a mountainous country.


The mountainous highways usually have 80 km/h due to low traffic and no driveway access. Curvature is never a factor when deciding speed limit in Norway. It's the valley and lowland routes that are most annoying since they have a huge number of long 60km/h stretches trough spread built areas. Needless to say the police enjoys staking out such stretches.


----------



## JeremyCastle

Ingenioren said:


> The mountainous highways usually have 80 km/h due to low traffic and no driveway access. Curvature is never a factor when deciding speed limit in Norway. It's the valley and lowland routes that are most annoying since they have a huge number of long 60km/h stretches trough spread built areas. Needless to say the police enjoys staking out such stretches.


If you look back a page or two, you'll see that the government has decided to lower speed limits from 80 to 70 on stretches of road so we'll see how many stretches of highway will still be 80. :-/


----------



## JeremyCastle

Can anyone tell me how much the Norwegian EU Kontroll costs? Also, how much does it cost from year to year for the tax sticker on the car?

Thanks.


----------



## IceCheese

JeremyCastle said:


> Can anyone tell me how much the Norwegian EU Kontroll costs? Also, how much does it cost from year to year for the tax sticker on the car?
> 
> Thanks.


I guess an EU control depends on wether your car needs fixing, but the check itself, shouldn't be more than say 500 - 750 NOK.

Årsavgift 2011 is 2.840 NOK


----------



## JeremyCastle

IceCheese said:


> I guess an EU control depends on wether your car needs fixing, but the check itself, shouldn't be more than say 500 - 750 NOK.
> 
> Årsavgift 2011 is 2.840 NOK


Thanks for that. The yearly tax, the Årsavgift, isn't charged based on the engine size? All cars pay the same amount?


----------



## IceCheese

JeremyCastle said:


> Thanks for that. The yearly tax, the Årsavgift, isn't charged based on the engine size? All cars pay the same amount?


The tax is flat, unless you have an old diesle vehicle without particle filter. The idea is that all cars wears down the road equaly.


----------



## Ingenioren

Some new aerials from Trondheim - Stjørdal project:
http://www.vegvesen.no/Om+Statens+vegvesen/Media/Siste+nyheter/Vis?key=215259


----------



## Pannyers

^^ nice pictures.


----------



## Ingenioren

A bit sad to see the two new round-abouts in Stjørdal. This section of E6 should be built to motorway standard.... hno:

Map Stjørdal:
http://www.vegvesen.no/_attachment/198147/binary/385748

Map Trondheim:
http://www.vegvesen.no/_attachment/198148/binary/391019


----------



## Devil9

*Hello*

Okay i got something to say. This is anoying me to much. Why cannot møre and romsdal get 4 lane way atleast in Ålesund?? Ive seen the traffic there in the rush hour and also after football matches. Its crazy that a contributing county should be left in the gutter. We have in Ålesund a 2+1 lane for like 1km. The E136 road going from Moa to Ålesund was designed for a 2+2 lane way. But i guess they said it was not needed. But now its needed and what do i see? Nothing happens. And then i readed in Sunnmørsposten about Citypack/Bypakka and it said a 4 lane way but it was going to be built in 2014 finnished 2018.. And i think they stopped the plans because people didnt want all the toll booths.. Which means this 2+2 lane motorway will never come i have lost all hope. And then i heard about møreaksa, but that wont be done in like 20 years... In 20 years ålesund will have 80k inhabitants atleast. Today it has 43000. Molde and kristiansund doesnt have a 2+2 lane way either. This is an outrage it takes me 6 hours and 30 minutes to get to Børsa which is near trondheim. And guess what from Orkanger to Outside Buvika there is a motortrafikkveg and orkanger has close to 10000, børsa 2000, buvika has like 3500. While ålesund doesnt even have motortrafikkveg.. Where will the madness end? Møre and romsdal should be more prioritised when it comes to roads.. Whole county has 1+1 roads. And 2+1 in the tunell from ålesund to elingsøya. 2+1 in a short stretch from ålesund to moa. 2+1 in Eiksundtunnellen. Thats it! This county has huge eksports by boat and trailers. When will we be heard?


----------



## Ingenioren

There's a 300m stretch of 4-lane road on Rv70 in Kristiansund :lol:

You have the new E39 and Rv70 on either sides of Krifast, E39 Kvivsvegen, new Straume bridges with 2-plane intersection and Tresfjord crossing and Hjelvika widening on E136, Oppdølsstranda tunnel on Rv70, U/C or soon U/C, so it's something atleast.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

At least there are spiral tunnels like Valderøytunnelen in Ålesund


----------



## Devil9

*hi*

Are you sure ingenøren? That there is a 300m stretch that has 2+2 lane road in Kristiansund? Ive been there a few times ive never seen it.. E39 kvisvegen is 2 lane normal highway.. Not 2+2. And i am sure tresfjordbrua would be 2 lanes too. Hjeløvika widening is where? Oppdølstranda tunell wont have 4 lanes... Krifast has 2 lanes road the gjemnesundbridge is 2 lanes and thats a part of e39 the whole way is 2 lanes no 4 lanes. I am sorry but i have been there often enough to get that impression. Show me a link to either of the projects that have 4 lanes.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Would this qualify as 4 lanes?


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

Devil9 said:


> Are you sure ingenøren? That there is a 300m stretch that has 2+2 lane road in Kristiansund? Ive been there a few times ive never seen it.. E39 kvisvegen is 2 lane normal highway.. Not 2+2. And i am sure tresfjordbrua would be 2 lanes too. Hjeløvika widening is where? Oppdølstranda tunell wont have 4 lanes... Krifast has 2 lanes road the gjemnesundbridge is 2 lanes and thats a part of e39 the whole way is 2 lanes no 4 lanes. I am sorry but i have been there often enough to get that impression. Show me a link to either of the projects that have 4 lanes.


I think the point Ingeniøren is trying to convey is that your region has got, and keep getting, quite a lot of government road funding relative to the the traffic level, population, and transport needs compared with other counties. Just think about all the new fjord crossings you have gotten over the last couple of decades, and the last thing I heard was that you will get a new by-pass around Volda. Even where there are tolls in M&R, the toll share is usually fairly low. Of course Kvivsveien and Oppdølstranda are not four lanes, when the traffic numbers are in the hundreds.

I agree that the Sunnmøre - Trøndelag axis really needs an improved connection, and that Spjelkavik (Moa)-Ålesund shold eventually be four lane. Generally, the whole Norwegian road network, especially outside the central Oslo area needs an upgrade. What I do not agree to is that M&R is particularly unfair treated compared with other regions. This is in particular true with Trøndelag as you mentioned, which has one of the lowest road funding numbers per capita in the country, far below M&R. E-136 does almost all the way have traffic below 20 000 AADT, and close to Moa it is only about 12 000 AADT. And that number is, in my opinion, caused by rather bad city planning. It does not make any sense that Ålesund has one of the largest shopping malls of the country (Moa) placed far from its city center. Populationwise, M&R is a low-growth region of the country.

In comparison, E6 south of Trondheim has 28 000 AADT with only two lanes, and they are currently planning a NEW three-ane bypass (706) which will get 28 000 AAD (if my memory serves me right). Except the new E6 bypass around Melhus, all new roads in the Trondheim area, including the E39 Hell-Orkanger road you mention, have been built with a large toll share. Newer roads are generally built with close to 100 % toll financing (or more if you include the VAT).


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

Perhaps this post will anger our new friend even more, but there are currently four important KVUs (konsekvensutredninger - Study / hearing of consequences?) potentially affecting the transportation sector of Mid-Norway / Trøndelag. These are high-level planning efforts for the transport sector. 

The first KVU is for the transport corridors of S-Trøndelag southwards from Trondheim, i.e E6, Rv3, and the railway. 
The second one is for the link between Trondheim and Steinkjer (E6 and Rv). 
The third one is for a ferry free E39 Stavanger-Trondheim. 
The fourth one is for a new railway freight terminal and possibly harbor of the Trondheim area.

Except the freight terminal study, which is not really relevant for this forum, the Trondheim-Steinkjer KVU has gotten the furthest.
( http://www.vegvesen.no/Vegprosjekte...v/Kan+stimulere+regional+utvikling.211023.cms )

The (Orkanger-) Trondheim-Steinkjer axis along the southern shore of the Trondheim fjord is the heaviest populated area of Mid-Norway, whatever that is worth. The section Trondheim-Steinkjer is around 120 km long, and currently takes about 1h50 by car, and 2h03 by railway. The railway is not even electrified yet and is single track. The highway (E6) is mostly two-lane undivided highway, still going through several towns.

They have set up several alternatives. The politicians of N-T seems to think that only the two most exensive alternatives make any sense:

*The modernization alternative*
24 minutes shorter driving time (to 1h26), and 44 minutes shorter by railway (to 1h19), by:
Several new tunnels on E6 and railway
Motorway Trondheim-Stjørdal
1+2 the rest of the way to Steinkjer
All road tunnels 2+2
Railway electrified
Cost: 24 billion NOK

*Maximum concept*
32 minutes shorter driving (to 1h18), 53 minutes shorter by railway (to 1h10), by:
Motorway Trondheim-Steinkjer
Longer tunnels (both railway and roads)
Dual track railway about half the way
Electrification of railway
Railway departures every 30 minutes / 15 minutes during rush hour

Cost: 31 billion NOK

By using a sensible speed limit on the motorway (120 instead of 100), I guess the driving times could be further reduced. 

No need to state which alternative I support, already Trondheim-Stjørdal is far beyond the AADT required for motorway. The maximum alternative would make the whole region a common labor market, which would greatly improve the areas economic performance. However, the politicians of the region does not have a great track record when it comes to attracting transportation funding.

No mentioning of my aforementioned fjord crossing alternative, unfortunately, which would shorten the driving times further, and, in addition, bind the two sides of the fjord together....


----------



## Ingenioren

It's the one Chris posted, "Kaibakken". No doubt it's narrow - but still afaik the only 4 lanes in M&R. As far as i know there are no projects to build motorways, motortraficway or even some 90km/h standard roads in M&R. Kristiansund and Ålesund has some 4-lane projects but neither will have motorway standard and general standard built on rural sections of stam-routes are 8,5 meters while the road ministry is looking into adding center-barriers on roads as low aadt as 4000 for future projects. Ålesund alone already has 7 two-plane intersections on E39 or E136 and one more under construction.



Devil9 said:


> Hjeløvika widening is where?


East of Tresfjordbrua on E136. 8,5m like the rest.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

I guess this should cover your needs:
http://www.trondheimsregionen.no/~t...011/TR_07-11_Demografiske_utviklingstrekk.pdf

Short story: SSB assumes that Trondheimsregionen (7) (Trondheim, Malvik, Stjørdal, Klæbu, Melhus, Skaun, Orkdal) will increase from roughly 250 k today to 310 k in 2030. This is prognosis is assuming, however, a significantly lower growth than we currently have, and is thus probably an estimate at the low side. The strongest relative growth rates will be in Klæbu, Skaun, Stjørdal, and Trondheim (in that order, with equal growth in TRD and Stjørdal). However, since Trondheim have more than 2/3rds of the total population in the area, most of the new people will come to Trondheim itself.

And you are right,current Trondheim politicians are mostly completely lacking any visions.


----------



## KiwiRob

Devil9 said:


> Okay i got something to say. This is anoying me to much. Why cannot møre and romsdal get 4 lane way atleast in Ålesund?? Ive seen the traffic there in the rush hour and also after football matches. Its crazy that a contributing county should be left in the gutter. We have in Ålesund a 2+1 lane for like 1km. The E136 road going from Moa to Ålesund was designed for a 2+2 lane way. But i guess they said it was not needed. But now its needed and what do i see? Nothing happens. And then i readed in Sunnmørsposten about Citypack/Bypakka and it said a 4 lane way but it was going to be built in 2014 finnished 2018.. And i think they stopped the plans because people didnt want all the toll booths.. Which means this 2+2 lane motorway will never come i have lost all hope. And then i heard about møreaksa, but that wont be done in like 20 years... In 20 years ålesund will have 80k inhabitants atleast. Today it has 43000. Molde and kristiansund doesnt have a 2+2 lane way either. This is an outrage it takes me 6 hours and 30 minutes to get to Børsa which is near trondheim. And guess what from Orkanger to Outside Buvika there is a motortrafikkveg and orkanger has close to 10000, børsa 2000, buvika has like 3500. While ålesund doesnt even have motortrafikkveg.. Where will the madness end? Møre and romsdal should be more prioritised when it comes to roads.. Whole county has 1+1 roads. And 2+1 in the tunell from ålesund to elingsøya. 2+1 in a short stretch from ålesund to moa. 2+1 in Eiksundtunnellen. Thats it! This county has huge eksports by boat and trailers. When will we be heard?


Neither Molde nor Kristiansund need 2+2 roads. What I think will happen in conjunction with the new port in Gjemmnes will be some significant roading upgrades, the current system is not going to work very well with the projected numbers of movements into and out of the port. The only other option is rail but it will be a cold day in hell before that happens.


----------



## KiwiRob

Devil9 said:


> Are you sure ingenøren? That there is a 300m stretch that has 2+2 lane road in Kristiansund? Ive been there a few times ive never seen it.. E39 kvisvegen is 2 lane normal highway.. Not 2+2. And i am sure tresfjordbrua would be 2 lanes too. Hjeløvika widening is where? Oppdølstranda tunell wont have 4 lanes... Krifast has 2 lanes road the gjemnesundbridge is 2 lanes and thats a part of e39 the whole way is 2 lanes no 4 lanes. I am sorry but i have been there often enough to get that impression. Show me a link to either of the projects that have 4 lanes.


I think either just before or just after you drive over the bridge before bådland there is a section of 2+2.


----------



## Devil9

*That is*



ChrisZwolle said:


> Would this qualify as 4 lanes?


That is quite narrow looks more to me as a 2+1 road. We get alot of road funding but it is not enough we need more as everyone says I will enjoy the tresfjord crossing. That route takes 1 hour and 30 minutes from ålesund to åndalsnes by bus... Train aint as popular as it should be in the region. Thats cause we have to drive far just to get to the station.. It takes 3 hours to get to Dombås in total with bus and train. Then we need to way 1 hour in dombås before the Trondheim train comes from oslo that takes us futher to Trondheim. Rauma railway does not transport to much people but it transports alot of goods. Ive seen your infastructure plan for m/r, 54°26′S 3°24′E Whats your name btw?

I like that plan. I think when the hafast tunnel comes a 2+1 motortrafikkveg from Hareid to Volda is needed or 2+2 from ulsteinvik to Volda excluding the eiksundsambanded which is alreddy done and is pretty good standard as it is. the trafic from Hareid to Ulsteinvik is growing. But this must be way into the future. Well a 2+2 lane road should be added to ålesund.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

Molde already has a 5-lane road, BTW :lol:

A bit more on the serious side: I was impressed when I in the early 90s discovered that the main street through Sunndalsøra (rv70), had four lanes. However, they have "modernized" the road since then, making a parking lot of half the street, it seems.

Yes, it would be great to be able to drive ferry-free from Trondheim to Volda. Currently this trip easily takes 8 hours, whereas Trondheim-Oslo is a bit more than 6. But Sulfjorden is not the easiest fjord to cross, is it? Truck drivers are not fond of steep hills


----------



## Devil9

Dude on the serious side a ferry waiting lane does not count then even hareid that has 8 lanes is bigger http://tiny.cc/8_lanes.. Molde has only 5 you know what that means. I think i heard Hareid- sulesund ferry connection had 1,5 million cars a year. Yea sulafjorden is hard to cross. The tunnel would be over 500 metres under the sea while Eiksundtunnelen is now 260 metres below the sea. That would be a new record in the same region And it wont be that steep. I still dont know your name ... My name is Martin. I was at sunndalsøra before easter vacation. Going home with Mørelinja(Nor-way bussekspress)


----------



## ChrisZwolle

I can understand the frustration of Norwegians about their road networks, especially if you compare it to Sweden or Denmark. However, I think it is important to understand that the Norwegian population is rather low for such a large country, plus all the mountains and fjords require very expensive crossings (sub-sea tunnels, bridges, land tunnels) where there is basically no sufficient tax base for. The cost of these engineering structures is quite high while the usage is rather low, hence the tolls. 

Replacing ferries by fixed links has huge economic impacts, especially for remote regions. Some call it pork-barrel spending, but I don't quite agree. Ferries are inconvenient and limit travel and economic growth. Did you know that after the Great Belt Ferry in Denmark got replaced by a fixed link, traffic soared from 9 000 to 30 000 vehicles per day? These are all people who think their trip is (economically) important enough to pay a toll of € 30 each way. 

Of course it would be nice if Norway build some more motorways, but I think the fixed links in the coastal regions are just as important. It also keeps rural areas from emptying, making schools, hospitals, supermarkets, etc unable to function. They had this problem in Spain, which they battled with new motorways.


----------



## KiwiRob

Sorry Chris but you are wrong, Norway has more money than it knows what to do with, as it currently stands more money is collected from petrol taxes and vehicle registrations than what is spent on roads, both maintenance and upgrading, tolls aren't really necessary for most roading projects, they could be funded from the money collected but not used.

I believe the problem with Norways roads can be laid completely at the governments door, basically they don't like cars, they don't like road transport. It's partly due to some daft notion that Norway is doing the correct thing environmentally and that other countries will use Norway as an example, they tend to forget that the Chinese buy more cars in a couple of days than are sold in Norway in 1 year. 

The roading problem is fixable, however (I believe) it won't happen under a socialist government, they just don't like cars.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

KiwiRob said:


> Sorry Chris but you are wrong, Norway has more money than it knows what to do with, as it currently stands more money is collected from petrol taxes and vehicle registrations than what is spent on roads, both maintenance and upgrading, tolls aren't really necessary for most roading projects, they could be funded from the money collected but not used.


On average yes, but consider all these large sub-sea tunnels or suspension bridges that carry maybe 3 000 vehicles per day. They are of huge economic importance, but the local tax-base is not enough to fund it. Norway did build a lot of major links in the past 20 years.

However, I agree on the symbolic politics part, just as annoying as Sweden's policy that for each increased speed limit, another road must have a decreased speed limit. :bash: Or the Danish incredible car tax that just causes the car fleet to age and be less clean and safe.


----------



## KiwiRob

I guess some local areas don't have enough money to make roading improvements on local roads, however petrol tax and vehicle registration tax are collected nationally, there is more money that could and should be used for roads than what is, roads of national significance should be centrally funded. 

BTW Norway has the oldest vehicle fleet in Europe.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

I'm wondering if the Norwegian GDP values aren't inflated because of the high gas / oil income. Does the average Norwegian really gets € 80 000 per year on his paycheck?

In the Netherlands the poorest province always turns out the richest in statistics because of gas exploration.


----------



## KiwiRob

Yes oil and gas distorts Norways GDP, the average salary is approx €56,000.

http://www.ssb.no/lonn/main.shtml


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

GDP and average salary are of course not interchangable quantities in any country. Everything that the nation produces do not end up in the pay checks. It depends on what the owners do with the created value and how they are regulated by the governement. In the case of Scandinavia in particular, a lot is directed to the public sector and given to the population in the form of services. In Norway, where the government is running with a huge surplus each year, a lot of it is also invested abroad. Only in the so called "Pension fund abroad", more popularly known as the "oil fund", roughly 400 billion Euros are tucked away.

The problem in Norway is not the lack of public money, in fact I think it is the converse. The economy is so good that the politicians have the focus on all other issues than improving the productivity.

In any case, toll roads are a rather inefficient way of collecting money, and the system is also very little sofisticated and affects people in a rather random way. The only toll I could accept is a system where all people pay per km, but we already have such a system more or less through the petrol tax.


----------



## IceCheese

54°26′S 3°24′E;76995793 said:


> Molde already has a 5-lane road, BTW :lol:
> 
> A bit more on the serious side: I was impressed when I in the early 90s discovered that the main street through Sunndalsøra (rv70), had four lanes. However, they have "modernized" the road since then, making a parking lot of half the street, it seems.





Devil9 said:


> Dude on the serious side a ferry waiting lane does not count then even hareid that has 8 lanes is bigger http://tiny.cc/8_lanes.. Molde has only 5 you know what that means.


Pfff, lanes are the old way. In my hometown we experiment with a lane free-environment. Hence number of lanes = indefinite, and win over you both!
This stretch is lane-free


----------



## Shifty2k5

IceCheese said:


> Pfff, lanes are the old way. In my hometown we experiment with a lane free-environment. Hence number of lanes = indefinite, and win over you both!
> This stretch is lane-free


^^

Is that guy in the front texting? Geez.


----------



## Ingenioren

Devil9 said:


> Dude on the serious side a ferry waiting lane does not count then even hareid that has 8 lanes is bigger http://tiny.cc/8_lanes.. Molde has only 5 you know what that means. I think i heard Hareid- sulesund ferry connection had 1,5 million cars a year. Yea sulafjorden is hard to cross. The tunnel would be over 500 metres under the sea while Eiksundtunnelen is now 260 metres below the sea. That would be a new record in the same region


The Hareid ferry-quay actually has 9 lanes..

Aadt:
Fv61 Hareid - Sulasundet: 2100.
E39 Molde - Vestnes: 1900.

6. and 7. most traficated ferry connections in Norway by number of vehicles.

Alternative crossingpoints for longdistance-trafic south of Ålesund:
Fv 60 Ørsneset – Magerholm 2100 (5.)
E39 Festøya - Solavågen: 1400 (11.)

Fv61 Hafast to replace Hareid - Sulasundet:
*625 meters under sea-level* - 18,5km long (plus the second tunnel of 4,8km with 150 meters under sea-level). 3,8 billion NOK combined for 2 twin-tube tunnels with 4 lanes. :cheers:










You need to make this happend to keep the record since Rogaland is going to beat the current ones with longest and deepest sub-sea tunnel twice. First in 2017.


----------



## Dan

Is the E6 Oslo-Swedish border all motorway these days?


----------



## IceCheese

^^Yes, only a few stretches on the Swedish side is left before we have a complete Oslo - Gothenburg motorway.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

^^ Swedish side:


----------



## Ingenioren

To be fair the motorway isn't really complete since it ends right on the municipality border of the city, where an old 2+2 express-road with 80km/h, bus-stops, narrow shoulders and low quality on/off ramps untill Ring3 (that has even lower standard with a simple T-intersection, sidewalks and halfyear 60km/h limit - and if going to the downtown/E18 tunnel you have to go trough a round-about). I don't see this critical part of E6 will be upgraded to motorway-standard any time soon....


----------



## IceCheese

But isn't parts of that stretch an OP3 project? I would love to see a superlong Manglerudtunnel. Abildsø - Alnabru has been mentioned. Maybe it should be all the way to Klemetsrud? Eitherway, I'm sure something will happen here soon (I would love to read that "Sørkorridorutredningen", which I can't find online).

From NTP 2014-2023:



Code:


Veg	Strekning					Beskrivelse av prosjekt eller grupper av tiltak		Begrunnelse						Kostnad mill. kr	Prioritet	1	2	3 

E6	Manglerudprosjektet fra Klemetsrud til Teisen	3 alternativer foreligger fra Sørkorridorutredningen	Fremkommelighet for kollektiv, næring og sykkel 	4 000					4 000


----------



## Ingenioren

You're right, it really sucks we know so little about the Manglerudproject. Surely it will be some sort of tunnel-bypass but where does it end and start and does it come with upgrade south to Klemetsrud. Guess we will wait a couple of more years to see what comes out of it. In 2013 and 2014 are set of 10 million per year to plan the bypass.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

Ingenioren said:


> The Hareid ferry-quay actually has 9 lanes..
> 
> Aadt:
> Fv61 Hareid - Sulasundet: 2100.
> E39 Molde - Vestnes: 1900.
> 
> 6. and 7. most traficated ferry connections in Norway by number of vehicles.
> 
> Alternative crossingpoints for longdistance-trafic south of Ålesund:
> Fv 60 Ørsneset – Magerholm 2100 (5.)
> E39 Festøya - Solavågen: 1400 (11.)
> 
> Fv61 Hafast to replace Hareid - Sulasundet:
> *625 meters under sea-level* - 18,5km long (plus the second tunnel of 4,8km with 150 meters under sea-level). 3,8 billion NOK combined for 2 twin-tube tunnels with 4 lanes. :cheers:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You need to make this happend to keep the record since Rogaland is going to beat the current ones with longest and deepest sub-sea tunnel twice. First in 2017.


Such an extremely deep tunnel does not make much environmental sense though, it means that trucks going from Spjelkavik to Volda will have to climb (and descend) at least 625+260+150=1035 m. This is comparable with the highest mountain passes on the national highway grid on a relatively short length, and the trucks in particular will spend a lot of unesseccary fuel. In comparison, the highest point on the Rv 3 Trondheim-Oslo is only 733 m.... 

The budget also seems a bit optimistic, all the time Rogfast has a significantly higher price tag for a tunnel that does not go that deep.

Instead, I think that this project, as well as perhaps Flakk-Rørvik (Trondheimsfjorden, number 4 on the list of most trafficated ferry connections, in practice 3-7 have almost the same traffic), should be explored for alternative techniques such as submerged tube tunnel bridges. 

As I have pointed out before, an alternative to cross the Trondheimsfjorden is to dig a tunnel on the route Ranheim-Frosta-Leksvik, where the depth is not so extreme, but that tunnel will be more than 20 km as well compared with 6-8 km if it can cross the fjord at Flakk-Rørvik.


----------



## Devil9

*r*

I have heard talk of moving the e39 to hareid when hafast is done. Then it will go futher through kvisvegen . If this tunnel gets built it will be a huge boost for souther sunnmøre because of all the buisness in hareid and ulsteinvik escpecially ulsteinvik and herøy which has huge shipping companies.


----------



## Dan

How about E18 to the Swedish border? That road seem so to be so neglected, I wish that was upgraded to motorway standard...

I was shocked to see that it was upgraded a few years ago but still to only 1+1!


----------



## Kjello0

I bet they save so much money by not building a motorway on the well 90 km between Egersund and Vigeland.

And will we see this? 2060 perhaps...


----------



## Ingenioren

Prices in 10^9 NOK

Traffic safety concept 2,7
Upgrade concept 4,3
Road normal concept 13,0
Center barrier concept *14,2* Recommended
Motorway concept *25,8*

http://www.vegvesen.no/_attachment/223675/binary/423511


----------



## Kjello0

Just wondering, where do you have it from that Stavanger - Egersund will be motorway when the map clearly shows 2(3) lanes? 

Because, if Stavanger - Egersund will be motorway I can't understand how it will be such a big difference.


----------



## Ingenioren

You're absolutly right, there will be no motorway between Ålgård and Vigeland after all(!)


----------



## Kjello0

I can't get my eyes of these sentences. 

"Midtrekkverkkonseptet ventes å få i størrelsesorden rundt 35 kilometer tunneler mellom Søgne og Ålgård. Dette innebærer at anslagsvis 40-50 km av strekningen uansett blir uten midtrekkverk, når en inkluderer overgangssonene utenfor tunnelene."

Gladly this is only a KVU, and not a Konsekvensutredning, Planprogram, Kommunedelplan or something like that.

When they come closer to building the plans will be different. 
I also notice that the prediction year for AaDT is 2040. 
Road standard is supposed to be planed after the predicted AaDT 20 years after the opening. This road is nowhere near to be finished by 2020. My guess is that the building alone will take over 10 years.

Hence the prediction year will be wrong. I guess the building may start in 2020, finished in 2030, outdated in 2025, and upgraded in 2040...
Cost, at least twice as much as building motorway right away.


----------



## Ingenioren

I guess i was fouled by the term "2-lane motorway" in the document. It's been a while since this term should no longer be used. 

It's more of a guideline for current projects along E39 than a continously built project - sadly this makes serious re-routing impossible, if the E39 followed a more populated coastal route north of Egersund a real motorway could be built also here without such negative "society economics value". Actually it's quite a positive surprice that center barrier is suggested at all for the least trafficated stretches. But at some point road authorities must understand that tunnels need to be twin-tubed for this kind of road, or reduce the use of tunnels for rural areas.


----------



## Ingenioren

Statens Vegvesen suggests a new norm for center-barriers. Currently they are added to roads with 8000+ aadt, Vegvesen suggests to lower this limit to 6000+ aadt

http://www.vegvesen.no/Om+Statens+vegvesen/Media/Siste+nyheter/Vis?key=225113


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

Ingenioren said:


> Statens Vegvesen suggests a new norm for center-barriers. Currently they are added to roads with 8000+ aadt, Vegvesen suggests to lower this limit to 6000+ aadt
> 
> http://www.vegvesen.no/Om+Statens+vegvesen/Media/Siste+nyheter/Vis?key=225113


Vegvesenet deserves some credit for having pushed the norms a bit during the last years. However, they should make the norm rules a bit more sophisticated, for instance by:

Have a larger weight on truck / heavy / large vehicles than cars as these takes more space, make larger damages in accidents, and often cause a lot of dangerous passing.
Introduce a cost element such that roads going through areas with low construction costs can be built to higher standard. E.g., there should be a equal safety benefit / cost ratio for new projects. 
Have higher standard for the most important national routes dominated by long distance travel (=> many drowsy drivers)

There is no excuse for building roads without central barriers today on the most important national routes, like E6 / Rv3, Oslo-Bergen, E18 and E39.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

Vegvesenet / SINTEF has made some new animations the new highway going into Trondheim from the east, i.e. the Strindheim intersection and tunnels / Rv 706:




^^The Strindheim intersection will be a 3-level interesection, with two roundabouts stacked above the main rv 706 thourough road. The car of the animation is using the roundabout at the intermediate level, coming from the east on 706. The upper roundabout is for local traffic, buses and taxis. 




^^Here the car is starting on the city (western) side of the tunnel and drives straight through on 706 below the two roundabouts.

This road system is currently under construction. It seems like they plan to signpost it as a motortrafikkvei / express road.


----------



## Ingenioren

They added a moped into the video even tough they will not be allowed


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

Ingenioren said:


> They added a moped into the video even tough they will not be allowed


Are you sure it is not a motorcycle?

I am not sure if this really will be a Mototrafikkroad. I cannot see any express road sign in the animation, just direction signs with the express road symbol. Mopeds will hopefully be banned in any case.

I guess there will also be center barrier in the road, in the animation there is just a green median.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

*Fjord crossing challenges and solutions (Trondheimsfjorden)*

Permanent crossing of Trondheimsfjorden and several other fjords have been discussed here from time to time. This week, some local politicians again argued for a tunnels between Frosta and Fosen, and between Frosta and Skatval (Åsenfjorden in map below) in Trondheimsfjorden. Election time, I guess.

The challenges involved in such crossings were illustrated in a report by the Norwegian research institute SINTEF from 2010 that I recently stumbled across:
http://www.sintef.no/upload/Byggfor...abasen/3C0627_rapport_med_vedlegg_endelig.pdf
It concerns with possible ways of making a new crossing of Trondheimsfjorden, and is written among others by one of the most well known experts on tunnel construction in Norway, Professor Amund Bruland.

As many of the Norwegian fjords where there is a desire to cross, Trondheimsfjorden is fairly deep (500 m or more where the ferry crosses). However, to add to the problem, the bottom consist of massive layers of sediments, as illustrated in this map of the fjord with the depth down to solid rock bed is shown:









I.e., at the place where the ferry runs today west of Trondheim where the width of the fjord is roughly 6 km, the depth of a bored tunnel would be in excess of 1100 m deep, which would require a very long and steep tunnel.

Hence, all the tunnel alternatives considered goes further east. For tunnels, the alternatives the report have analysed is more or less indicated by this map:









The easternmost alternative could include a side branch to Frosta. They stipulate that the traffic would be anything between 5000 and 12 000 AADT, but they have not considered traffic to Frosta or a rerouting of the E6 (main traffic arteria of the area.) Anyway, they conclude that a twin tube / four lane tunnel would be required for the distances and traffic involved.

Characteristic data for various alternatives are shown in the (Norwegian) table below:








Største dybde= largest depth
Samlet lengde= total length
Lengde i stigning > 5 %= Length w/ inclination >5 % (but <7 %)
Lengste avstand til friluft= Longest distance to fresh air.

Needless to say, all the tunnel alternatives are massively long, much longer than the fjord is wide. The third and fourth alternative in the table essentially follow the same route, except that the former includes a side branch to Frosta (hence the longer length and larger share with high inclination. I have earlier heard that this alternative would be around 26 km long, but I guess it is now a bit longer because stricter limits on max inclination.

The report concludes that only the second and third alternative, of 26.5 and 36.4 km would be worthwhile to work further on, with estimated 2010 costs of 5 and 7 billion NOK, respectively.

The last part of the report deals with alternatives to bored tunnels, specifically a floating bridge, letting ship traffic pass either by having a high bridge at one or more points or building a submerged tube. For the length involved here (6 km at least), a suspension bridge would be hugely expensive, if at all possible.

This latter part of the report is rather superficial. Needless to say, however, a floating bridge would be exposed to immense forces from wind, waves, and not at least (in the case of Trondheimsfjorden) rather strong tidal currents. The resulting large bending forces are difficult to handle for a 6 km long bridge. Hence, for traditional floating designs, anchoring would be required, which again is difficult because of the large depths involved. 

One possible solution to solve the problems associated with the bending forces has been proposed in connection with the plans to cross another "difficult" fjord in Norway, Sognefjorden. Instead of having a rather stiff bridge, it is proposed to use a bridge with elements that are connected with some kind of hinge. I.e., each element can rotate freely in the horizontal plane with respect to the next link in the chain:








Each element wil then be more or less freed from the bending forces, and only tensile strain, which is much easier to handle, remains. In such a design, the center part of the bridge should be allowed to move several hundred meters, and anchoring should not be used:









Not sure where all of this ends, but it is interesting to see that there is still some innovation in the area that could lead to spectacular solutions in the future. As for the Trondheimsfjord crossing, I am not too optimistic that anything will happen soon. Perhaps the first thing to happen will be a crossing of Åsednfjorden, as it is relatively shallow. The politicians at the moment can barely handle to upgrade the current main roads to a civilized standard....


----------



## Ingenioren

Unfortunate that China will be building a floating tunnel before us. This should have been our "Moonlanding." 

Maybe we can be the first to build a float-bridge free of anchors. It's not proposed for Sognefjorden, but Bjørnafjorden as mentioned in article of TU.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

^^ Sorry, my mistake, I just read an article regarding Sognefjorden.

As far as I remember, the Chinese project is "only" 1.5 km long. Perhaps we can learn something from that project before we go full scale on a wider fjord in Norway?

In any case, I think the motorists last night in the 3.5 km + ferry queue last night at the northern shore of Trondheimsfjorden wants a permanent crossing sooner than the more likely "later":








(There has been quite a lot of problems with these ferries lately, but yesterday all three ferries were running as they should, so the problem was rather huge weekend traffic.)


----------



## IceCheese

54°26′S 3°24′E;79145264 said:


> In any case, I think the motorists last night in the 3.5 km + ferry queue last night at the northern shore of Trondheimsfjorden wants a permanent crossing sooner than the more likely "later":
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (There has been quite a lot of problems with these ferries lately, but yesterday all three ferries were running as they should, so the problem was rather huge weekend traffic.)


Lol, you should know it doesn't help with a new motorway if it's going to be a toll-road, though:

E6 north of Moss by the tollboth, yesterday:


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Waiting times for the ferry can easily be 2+ hours, while the toll booths may cost you maybe 30 minutes additional time.


----------



## Ingenioren

I was at the E6-jam. Only lost 15 minutes... It was due to the coin-slots being "full" and only one autopass-lane and one manual booth...


----------



## Kjello0

All toll roads should be automatic by now. Saves a lot of money too.


----------



## IceCheese

^^Apparantly not if you can have only one person on job at all times.

And I guess we have to go someplace else in Moss to find the longest (in waiting time) lines...


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

^^ I have always found the design of that toll station strange, with the manual lanes in the middle. But when the guy in Vegvesenet seems to make the claim that automatic tolling was quite new in 2001 (13 years after the first system was installed in Trondheim), you get the feeling that guys designing the toll station perhaps not were among the brightest engineers. In any case, I don't see why they cannot now make it all-automatic like in the rest of the country.

I had another look at the traffic estimates discussed above regarding a Trondheimsfjord crossing. The very rough 20 year estimate was between 5000 and 12000 AADT, not including any traffic from a Frosta branch.. Usually such projects have a one-off increase between 20-40 %. In addition, an annual growth between 2 and 4 % is assumed. The starting point is the traffic of the main ferry line across the fjord today. 

I think the lower estimate is rather unrealistic. Firstly, you will probably have traffic transferred from the other ferry line and the people that today drive around the fjord. This will increase the base with perhaps 50 %. Secondly, once the connection is opened, the rather undeveloped (sorry Trondheimr, at least I did not say uncivilized) sunny north shore of the fjord will all of a sudden become a very attractive place to live for people working in Trondheim. 2 % is approximately equal to the historic general traffic growth of Norway. Hence, I will assume that 4 % is a lower limit for the annual growth,and perhaps 6 % as the upper limit. 

If the solution with the Frosta side branch is chosen, the traffic that forms the basis for the calculation should probably increase with another 25 % or so assuming that about 50 % of the traffic going south from Frosta on the E6 ends up in Trondheim. It the E6 is rerouted, perhaps 100 % should be added to the starting point, assuming that roughly half of the traffic on the E6 passing Frosta is destined for Trondheim, but in this case the annual growth will probably be between 3-4 % instead of between 4-6 %. 

*Hence, my 20 year estimate would be from around 11 000 AADT to 19 000 without the Frosta side branch, and between 14 000 and 23 000 AADT with the Frosta branch! *

Of course, not everybody will necessarily agree with my assumptions...


----------



## IceCheese

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.


----------



## KiwiRob

IceCheese this is Norway, who knows what or why such daft decisions are made.


----------



## devo

Also, this isn't really a bypass. 

The stupidity in Norwegian road planning is not the fact that they build sub/mixed-standard roads. It's the underlying regulations and rules that gives us wonderful three-lane roads and roundabouts where everyone knows that there should be motorway standard and grade separated junctions, because the traffic volume eventually will demand it.


----------



## Kjello0

Some days old, but Høyre wants to lower the AaDT needed to build motorways from 12 000 to 8 000.

It's better than today, but still far away from ambitious.


----------



## Fargo Wolf

54°26′S 3°24′E;79568940 said:


> Gudbrandsdalen / E6 continue to be closed, however. Here is an image from yesterday:


And I keep getting told that owning vehicles from North America isn't that great, numbers wise. The owner of that Chevy/GMC is gonna need to get the diff oil replaced after driving in that.


----------



## DanielFigFoz

There are quite a few American vehicles, mainly the the drivng wheel on the left hand side in the UK. There are Ford Expeditions or something like that that are right hand drive though


----------



## IceCheese

^^I don't think he was asking for Britain, but yeah we see some American vehicles around, especially in farm-dominated lands as the picture from the Gudbrandsdalen-area shows.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

Fargo Wolf said:


> And I keep getting told that owning vehicles from North America isn't that great, numbers wise. The owner of that Chevy/GMC is gonna need to get the diff oil replaced after driving in that.


Luckily these conditions are not normal on Norwegian highways...



Kjello0 said:


> Some days old, but Høyre wants to lower the AaDT needed to build motorways from 12 000 to 8 000.
> 
> It's better than today, but still far away from ambitious.


That map seems more like a summary of the situation today rather than a projection for 2023. Nothing is new under the sun. For the construction of new roads the 30 years perspective (i.e. 2041) is relevant in Norway. I.e., 8000 AADT will cover larger parts of the network then what is shown here.

I guess this would be an improvment, but Høyre should start looking at connections at a national level as well, just like FrP (which in many other areas are quite irresponsible, IMO). Then new connections should not necessarily be built where the traffic is highest today, but where the routes are most suitable for connecting the different regions of (southern) Norway together.


----------



## MKA123

Kjello0 said:


> So much for barriers...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.nrk.no/nyheter/distrikt/nrk_trondelag/1.7667051
> A wheel on the trailer punctured and the trailer went right through the barrier who is supposed to withstand cars hitting it in 150 km/h.


That's just beside where I live! 

But, it's a miracle we got center barriers at this stretch at all. In the middle of the 2000s they built a new stretch of E6 just here, but center barriers where initially planned for just half the stretch (the four-line stretch). Luckily, the transport minister decided to build the whole stretch with center barriers after all (http://nrk.no/nyheter/distrikt/nrk_trondelag/3819750.html).:banana:


----------



## Ingenioren

Study for roads in Kristiansand recommends a new 4-lane expressway bypass aswell as new airport road and extension of Fv456 Expressway:









http://www.vegvesen.no/_attachment/239317/binary/443148


----------



## bogdymol

A Romanian guy is visiting Norway these days. Here is a nice video made by him on Norwegian roads:

26811612
video source


----------



## Ingenioren

^ Fv64 Atlanterhavsvegen - also one of the national tourist routes 

After terror attacks highways are back to normal, even the 4-lane road Ring1 passing under government block open again for traffic. 

Temporary E16 passing Utavika across the sound from Utøya is open, but still recommended to avoid. Bad luck for this important highway, first the collapse of Nestunnel on the expressway (will open fully rehabilitated next year.) then rockslides on the only alternative road before the attacks again closed it.

Border checks are no longer strict. Untill monday every car was checked and passengers questioned making bordercrossing a delay for hours during peak.


----------



## KiwiRob

Ingenioren said:


> ^ Fv64 Atlanterhavsvegen - also one of the national tourist routes


And one of the few toll roads in the area where they removed the toll when the route was paid for; it was also paid off about 5 years earlier than expected.


----------



## Pannyers

^^ Some pictures from my holiday a month ago.


----------



## Ingenioren

essenze said:


> A couple of aerial photographies from Statens Vegvesen of the project:
> 
> Western part / Møllenberg tunnel entrance:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eastern part / Strindheim tunnel entrances and the 3-level intersection:


Reposting these from the local forum. It's part of Trondheims Northern expressway.

In other news: Vegvesen has made a recommendation for Rv35 from E134 to Jevnaker - the road is nicknamed Ring4 - since it works as a bypass off for Oslo area. Suggestion is to build a 4-lane motorway (100km/h) From E134) - Vikersund and 2/3-lanes (90km/h) Vikersund - E16. Widening of joint section with E16 to 4-lanes (80km/h) and from E16 to Jevnaker 2/3-lanes (90km/h):
http://www.vegvesen.no/_attachment/253406/binary/454016


----------



## IceCheese

Ingenioren said:


> In other news: Vegvesen has made a recommendation for Rv35 from E134 to Jevnaker - the road is nicknamed Ring4 - since it works as a bypass off for Oslo area. Suggestion is to build a 4-lane motorway (100km/h) From E134) - Vikersund and 2/3-lanes (90km/h) Vikersund - E16. Widening of joint section with E16 to 4-lanes (80km/h) and from E16 to Jevnaker 2/3-lanes (90km/h):
> http://www.vegvesen.no/_attachment/253406/binary/454016


Nice, I drove that route from end to end this summer, and it seems as road with potential, but terribly outdated. The worst part is from north/east of Jevnaker to common stretch with Rv4, but it may be an other plan fixing that?

There should also be a new shortcut from Maura to Råholt, making it more attractive for people on their way to E6 northwards, and opposite.


----------



## metasmurf

A far outer bypass of the whole Oslo Region is a good idea. There are plans for a similar approach here in Sweden as well with Riksväg 55 from Uppsala to Norrköping bypassing the Stockholm region ( http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riksväg_55 ).


----------



## katia72

metasmurf said:


> A far outer bypass of the whole Oslo Region is a good idea. There are plans for a similar approach here in Sweden as well with Riksväg 55 from Uppsala to Norrköping bypassing the Stockholm region ( http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riksväg_55 ).



What is needed is a new (RING 4) around Oslo, similar to that in Berlin or other major cities in Europe .... but this is never going to happen: (


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

At least plans are made that are more less sensibel around Oslo. In my part of the world, politicians still believe having the main road straight through the every small village is a good thing. A new E6 straight through Oppdal was recently approved (a block or so from the old). Now villagers in Berkåk (E6, http://rennebu.arbeiderparti.no/-/bulletin/print/663593_e6-gjennom-berkaak-sentrum?ref=mst ) and Alvdal (rv 3, http://www.ostlendingen.no/nyheter/nord-østerdal/politikerne-vil-ikke-flytte-rv-3-1.6336907) is fighting to get a similar deal. The worst part is that they probably get their will.

At least there is some decent scenery when driving in Norway. This guy moved from Bergen to Trondheim and filmed the entire van drive:





He filmed a lot of the scenery as he drove along, but quite frankly that is a lot more interesting than the Norwegian roads anyway. 

The guy seems to have chosen E16 to Lærdal, crossing Sognefjorden with a ferry to Kaupanger and then taking rv 55 (Sognefjellet) to Lom and then E6 nortwards. That is a doable with a van during summer. However, with a smaller car a ferry free and more interesting alternative would be to continue from Lærdal towards Øvre Årdal and then take the spectacular, steep, winding and very narrow Tindevegen....




Both Sognefjellet and Tindevegen is closed during winter, btw, and at least the latter should not be attempted with any longer vehicle.


----------



## cinxxx

^^ Beautiful roads! 
:cheers:


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

Some news from Norwegian highways:

Sluppen bridge in Trondheim is on the brink of collapsing (?) and is closed for at least four weeks. http://www.adressa.no/nyheter/trondheim/article1682592.ece

This is national road 706 and one of the few east / west connection open to the public in Trondheim, and is thus quite heavily trafficated in Norwegian terms, although a selective toll has reduced the traffic quite a lot lately. Hence, a lot of people now have to drive long detours of 10 km or so through other streets which the local rulers have done their best to strangle.

The damage on the bridge was probably caused by a truck hitting the crash barrier. However, it was built in 1954 on the pylons of a railway bridge from 1864 (?), so somebody should have seen this coming... Anyway, through tolls it will be replaced by another bridge and a new toll financed road system in not so many years (hopefully). See:
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?p=46218417#post46218417
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=66021257&postcount=1179

 Some people has tried to calculate what the future means in terms of tolls in some regions of the country:
E6 / Rv3 Oslo-Elverum: NOK 175 (likely to be higher due to cost increases on Rv 3)
E6 Trøndelag southbound from Trondheim: NOK 200 (=> Trondheim-Oslo NOK 375)
E6 through Trøndelag: NOK 568!
Currency rate: Roughly 8 NOK per €
Sources: 
http://www.adressa.no/nyheter/okonomi/article1682921.ece
http://www.ostlendingen.no/nyheter/350-kroner-tur-retur-oslo-1.6444303

In a few weeks, there is an election in Norway.....


----------



## cinxxx

I don't get it, high rated countries, as Norway, Sweden, Danemark, what's with all these tolls? You have a bridge, you toll it, a tunnel, toll it, traffic through the city, tax it. I don't get it. 
And after all this, you can't repair a bridge? And worse, you put a toll so people should bypass the road. 
I'm not judging at all, I respect you, but just a little puzzled.

BTW, what are the predictions for elections?
:cheers:


----------



## Shifty2k5

cinxxx said:


> I don't get it, high rated countries, as Norway, Sweden, Danemark, what's with all these tolls? You have a bridge, you toll it, a tunnel, toll it, traffic through the city, tax it. I don't get it.
> And after all this, you can't repair a bridge? And worse, you put a toll so people should bypass the road.
> I'm not judging at all, I respect you, but just a little puzzled.
> 
> BTW, what are the predictions for elections?
> :cheers:


Denmark and Sweden dont toll motorways.


----------



## IceCheese

^^Sweden does on Svinesund.


----------



## Schweden

cinxxx said:


> I don't get it, high rated countries, as Norway, Sweden, Danemark, what's with all these tolls? You have a bridge, you toll it, a tunnel, toll it, traffic through the city, tax it. I don't get it.
> And after all this, you can't repair a bridge? And worse, you put a toll so people should bypass the road.
> I'm not judging at all, I respect you, but just a little puzzled.
> 
> BTW, what are the predictions for elections?
> :cheers:


Well, yeah, Norway is the only Scandinavian country with a widespread use of tolls. They also have the worst roads :lol:


----------



## cinxxx

That's a paradox for me. High taxes, tolls, great economy, and few motorway (like) roads ... but maybe trafiic doesn't recommand them?


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

We don't understand it either....

Historically, roads were seen more or less as a luxury, as most of the cash cow industries of Norway relied, and still to a large extent relies, on ship transport. So, when the Germans did not have time to realize their plans for a motorway network during the war (including a Trondheim-Oslo motorway), everything was shelfed until the 60s sometime when new plans were drawn up, only to be shelfed again a few years later because district politics got the upper hand.

Tolls are however a rather new phenomenom. Denmark tolls it's larger bridges, btw, including the bridge to Sweden. That's how the toll started in Norway as well back in the late 70s / early 80s. Now, however, it has gone as far that the leader of transport committe of the parliament, coming from the opposition even, claims that it is not possible to build roads without tolls, although building a small dent in the stock market (Norway have a lot of foreign investments) are costing us many times the cost of a brand new and fantastic road network all over the country...


----------



## cinxxx

54°26′S 3°24′E;83267810 said:


> We don't understand it either....
> 
> Historically, roads were seen more or less as a luxury, as most of the cash cow industries of Norway relied, and still to a large extent relies, on ship transport. So, when the Germans did not have time to realize their plans for a motorway network during the war (including a Trondheim-Oslo motorway), everything was shelfed until the 60s sometime when new plans were drawn up, only to be shelfed again a few years later because district politics got the upper hand.
> 
> Tolls are however a rather new phenomenom. Denmark tolls it's larger bridges, btw, including the bridge to Sweden. That's how the toll started in Norway as well back in the late 70s / early 80s. Now, however, it has gone as far that the leader of transport committe of the parliament, coming from the opposition even, claims that it is not possible to build roads without tolls, although building a small dent in the stock market (Norway have a lot of foreign investments) are costing us many times the cost of a brand new and fantastic road network all over the country...


This really sucks for you.
And it's again, an example of stupid politicians (or maybe quite the opposite, they know exactly what they are doing). They are only taking advantage of high life standard to tax more and more, and also with the big amount of money raise social support, because they bring votes. And the big shame is, when they also succeed convincing the people that this is the right way to go.
But I don't want to go to deep into this, and I will apologize for the off-topic.


----------



## KiwiRob

cinxxx said:


> I don't get it, high rated countries, as Norway, Sweden, Danemark, what's with all these tolls? You have a bridge, you toll it, a tunnel, toll it, traffic through the city, tax it. I don't get it.
> And after all this, you can't repair a bridge? And worse, you put a toll so people should bypass the road.
> I'm not judging at all, I respect you, but just a little puzzled.
> 
> BTW, what are the predictions for elections?
> :cheers:


It's very puzzeling indeed, but after time once the road has been paid for the toll is removed, or in the case of some tunnels where I live the tunnel has been long paid off but they keep the toll to pay for other projects, many not roading related.


----------



## KiwiRob

cinxxx said:


> That's a paradox for me. High taxes, tolls, great economy, and few motorway (like) roads ... but maybe trafiic doesn't recommand them?


I think it's more down to a political system which doesn't encourage roads or even like cars, they don't like rail either, and they don't care if they strangle the economy. It costs more to ship a europallet of goods from Molde to Oslo than it costs to ship that same pallet from Oslo to anywhere in Europe.


----------



## cinxxx

KiwiRob said:


> I think it's more down to a political system which doesn't encourage roads or even like cars, they don't like rail either, and they don't care if they strangle the economy. It costs more to ship a europallet of goods from Molde to Oslo than it costs to ship that same pallet from Oslo to anywhere in Europe.


OK, I heard of not encouraging car system (because of pollution, noise, etc.), but never of not doing this for rail system. If you ask me, that's absolutely stupid, and my guess is it's because of some political clientele, and if this is not the case, than it can only mean infinite stupidity. 
Can't the people change anything regarding this? Or is the majority satisfied with the system, in case there's nothing to do...


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Maybe Norway has too many cave people...

(citizens against virtually everything).


----------



## KiwiRob

cinxx the Oslo commuter rail network has been starved of funding so next to no maintenance work has been done on it in decades, the problems have gotten so bad that this year and for the next three years the entire network will be shut down for 45-60 days each summer. 

Chris the problem with Norway is many/most Norwegians don't realise how bad things really are, the average Norwegian lives in a bubble where they believe that everything in Norway is world class, that it's the best country in the world to live in, this is all total bullshit of course.


----------



## Norsko

Chris has a point. The cave people may not be so many in numbers, but they certainly know how to scream out loud when something they do not like is about to happen; This being new roads, new buildings or a new TV schedule on the national TV channels... The scary part is that their whining quite often gets them where they want...


----------



## KiwiRob

^^ I have to say I don't like how canal digital has re-organised the channel order. :lol:


----------



## Norsko

Just scream it out loud and wait for the change!!! :speech: :lol::lol:


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

KiwiRob said:


> Chris the problem with Norway is many/most Norwegians don't realise how bad things really are, the average Norwegian lives in a bubble where they believe that everything in Norway is world class, that it's the best country in the world to live in, this is all total bullshit of course.


I can relate to much of what has been said above, although I got a fiber to my home now so I could ditch canal digital:lol:

However, I have never heard anyone claiming that Norwegian roads are world class. True, some people say that roads in the counties around Oslo are decent, or that we should not build roads due to the environment etc., but nobody are stupid enough to claim that we have wordl class roads. After all, few people travel more than Norwegians.

[ot]
However, life is more than roads. For me Norway is the best country to live in simply because I love the outdoors. Not many places in the world where you can have good skiing during winter, swim during summer, fish salmon in the river, and hunt or pick all the berries you need during the fall, have deer, moose, or fox and badgers going through your garden almost every day, everything virtually inside a larger city. And it must also be said that there are not many places in the world where the average Joe has a higher standard of living like than in Norway, event though the most laborous and skilled among us could probably have been much better off in terms of purchasing power somewhere else. Oil is of course a part of the explanation, culture is another. To bad the public sector is eating more and more of the cake...

BTW: The election is a local one, and the labor party of course got a big boost after the terror attack.
[/ot]


----------



## KiwiRob

54°26′S 3°24′E;83289399 said:


> I can relate to much of what has been said above, although I got a fiber to my home now so I could ditch canal digital:lol:
> 
> However, I have never heard anyone claiming that Norwegian roads are world class. True, some people say that roads in the counties around Oslo are decent, or that we should not build roads due to the environment etc., but nobody are stupid enough to claim that we have wordl class roads. After all, few people travel more than Norwegians.


Yes but how many Norwegians travel by car? Most jump on charter flights to the sun, they don't rent cars when away let alone drive on national highways. 



54°26′S 3°24′E;83289399 said:


> [ot]
> However, life is more than roads. For me Norway is the best country to live in simply because I love the outdoors. Not many places in the world where you can have good skiing during winter, swim during summer, fish salmon in the river, and hunt or pick all the berries you need during the fall, have deer, moose, or fox and badgers going through your garden almost every day, everything virtually inside a larger city. And it must also be said that there are not many places in the world where the average Joe has a higher standard of living like than in Norway, event though the most laborous and skilled among us could probably have been much better off in terms of purchasing power somewhere else. Oil is of course a part of the explanation, culture is another. To bad the public sector is eating more and more of the cake...
> [/ot]


You could with the exception of foxes, badgers and moose be describing NZ. As you said Norway is a fantastic place for someone who is average, blue collar types do very well here, professional types don't.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

KiwiRob said:


> Yes but how many Norwegians travel by car? Most jump on charter flights to the sun, they don't rent cars when away let alone drive on national highways.


All Norwegians have droven multiple times in Sweden and Denmark. Most Norwegians have also traveled by car from Norway to continental Europe. Granted, beyond Scandinavia, most Norwegians travel by plane, but even then it is very common to rent a car to get around, at least when on holiday. 



KiwiRob said:


> You could with the exception of foxes, badgers and moose be describing NZ. As you said Norway is a fantastic place for someone who is average, blue collar types do very well here, professional types don't.


This is getting fairly far off-topic, but as far as I know, not many Kiwis can normally ski in their neighborhood, hence the lack of Kiwi winter sport stars. However, this has nothing to do with my main point: Although the economy in Norway is very good, my impression is that it is often other qualities that attract foreign professionals to Norway. Only during the last 10 years Norway received 242 000 immigrants from Europe. Quite a few of them were actually professionals from Sweden / Germany / Netherlands /France /UK etc. There are many at my workplace and in my neighborhood. And, I don't fancy that badger too much :lol:

PS: There is also a big difference between being a professional in a town like Molde and the major cities of Norway in terms of salary and other benefits, but then you have a great view


----------



## KiwiRob

You can't say all Norwegians have driven in Denmark and Sweden, that a huge generalisation, same as saying most Norwegians have travelled by car to continental, I doubt even half have. Hence the reason why most Norwegians know the roads here are bad but they really don't know how bad they actually are compared to roads of other European countries. 

And skiing most NZer's live with 3.5 hours of a skifield, some live within minutes, you'll find that whilst we don't go into the trad winters sports we are well represented when it comes to extreme skiing.

Back to the roads I can't understand why the govt has a problem with developing an efficient road network, the cost to the economy each year must run into the tens of billions of NOK; Norwegian business are already on the back foot due to the high labour costs then they have to deal with excessive transport costs due to poor roads. 

It takes a truck 8-9 hours (7-8 in a car) to drive the 520 km from Molde to Oslo, it took me 9 hours to drive from Milan to Hamburg, which is twice the distance. I just can't understand why building a modern, efficient, safe highway network isn't a national priority.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Many Dutch emigrate to Norway for the peacefulness and serenity, not to be found in overcrowded Netherlands. Keep in mind the least densely populated province in the Netherlands (Zeeland) is 80% more densely populated than the most densely populated fylke (except for Oslo) in Norway. Akershus has 105 inh./km², Zeeland has 186 inh./km². And even Zeeland is considered to be "empty" by Dutch standards (35% of the Dutch average).


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

KiwiRob said:


> Back to the roads I can't understand why the govt has a problem with developing an efficient road network, the cost to the economy each year must run into the tens of billions of NOK; Norwegian business are already on the back foot due to the high labour costs then they have to deal with excessive transport costs due to poor roads.
> 
> It takes a truck 8-9 hours (7-8 in a car) to drive the 520 km from Molde to Oslo, it took me 9 hours to drive from Milan to Hamburg, which is twice the distance. I just can't understand why building a modern, efficient, safe highway network isn't a national priority.


I certainly agree with you on this.


----------



## Durin

KiwiRob said:


> I just can't understand why building a modern, efficient, safe highway network isn't a national priority.


I never fully understood why the network of proper highways and motorways is so small compared to Sweden and Finland and why Norway being the richest country in the Nordics has invested so little. All funds for the past 20 years seem to have gone into prestigious bridge and tunnel projects across the fjords, instead of widening and reconstruction of existing highways.

Sure the topography along the coastal routes puts certain restrictions on road building and Norway is certainly not Denmark, but considering that most new projects are tolled and that the state always recoups the investment, why isn't more being built? Again I compare with Sweden and Finland; where major networks already exists - and also free of charge.

But then again, the Norwegian subsidiaries of SAS Scandinavian Airlines are the only ones normally operating with a profit.


----------



## KiwiRob

Durin said:


> I never fully understood why the network of proper highways and motorways is so small compared to Sweden and Finland and why Norway being the richest country in the Nordics has invested so little. All funds for the past 20 years seem to have gone into prestigious bridge and tunnel projects across the fjords, instead of widening and reconstruction of existing highways.


What annoys me as well is that most of these bridge and tunnel projects are funded via tolls, for national routes they should be paid for by central govt. The poor motorist is having to pay for decades of under development. I think the other issue is that cars have often been seen as prestigious, socialists don't like them.



Durin said:


> Sure the topography along the coastal routes puts certain restrictions on road building and Norway is certainly not Denmark, but considering that most new projects are tolled and that the state always recoups the investment, why isn't more being built? Again I compare with Sweden and Finland; where major networks already exists - and also free of charge.


I don't buy that old chestnut that Norway is a difficult country to build roads in, that's just a bullshit excuse the govt uses to deflect peoples complaints, the Swiss have bigger mountains, they have a great network, the Croatians are a lot poorer yet have almost completed an entire motorway network over some pretty tough terrain in the past 15 years. 



Durin said:


> But then again, the Norwegian subsidiaries of SAS Scandinavian Airlines are the only ones normally operating with a profit.


Yup but a lot of the Norwegian routes which SAS flys are public service routes where they make good profits. 

It's a pity (not really) that WW2 didn't last a little longer since I believe the Germans planned to build Autobahns in Norway. I have been told that a lot of what is here today is due to the Germans, can anyone confirm this?


----------



## ChrisZwolle

KiwiRob said:


> It's a pity (not really) that WW2 didn't last a little longer since I believe the Germans planned to build Autobahns in Norway. I have been told that a lot of what is here today is due to the Germans, can anyone confirm this?


Nearly all construction of German Autobahns, or motorways constructed by the Germans in occupied countries, ceased in 1942.


----------



## Galro

We have never had any major car manufactures in Norway unless you count a few pre war marques and Think, which in turns means that we never have had any large companies lobbying for nicer roads and cheaper cars. In fact we have a lot of businesses that are profiting from the current situation - Hurtigruten etc. . Also add the fact that our roads are dead end and do not connect other countries with each other (meaning we only use it for domestic transport), and the cars and the roads are left as a very easy cash cow for the gov.


----------



## Fargo Wolf

It's not that you don't have any highway connections with other countries, it's that you don't have a lot of them. There are land connections with Sweden (both in the north and south), as well as Russia and Finland in the northern part of the country. Geography and population are the reason there are so few connections, but you know that. Very few highways are actually dead end.

The Hurtigruten, while still playing an important role in passenger transportation, is now more a tourist thing. While you "can" get your car or motorcycle onboard (the vessel is not a RO-RO), it's geared more towards those travelling without a vehicle.

Ferries fill in most highway gaps, though there is a need for improvement in service, both in terms of scheduling and capacity.

It all comes down to cost. Yes, there are several places where the road network needs to be improved, but, given the small population, it's not financially feasible, or require very expensive tolls.


----------



## Galro

Fargo Wolf said:


> It's not that you don't have any highway connections with other countries, it's that you don't have a lot of them. There are land connections with Sweden (both in the north and south), as well as Russia and Finland in the northern part of the country. Geography and population are the reason there are so few connections, but you know that. Very few highways are actually dead end.


Not a single person driver through Norway to get to Russia, Sweden or Finland. Hence they are dead end in the sense that it is only used by the people living/visiting this country, and it is not a thoroughfare like German or Denmarks road network is. 


Fargo Wolf said:


> The Hurtigruten, while still playing an important role in passenger transportation, is now more a tourist thing. While you "can" get your car or motorcycle onboard (the vessel is not a RO-RO), it's geared more towards those travelling without a vehicle.


It used to be a major transport link between the North and the West of country. We also have had many large wharf and shipping companies earning money on crappy road network, while we have historically had none large car manufacturers or similar pushing for more a car-friendly politic.


----------



## KiwiRob

Galro said:


> We have never had any major car manufactures in Norway unless you count a few pre war marques and Think, which in turns means that we never have had any large companies lobbying for nicer roads and cheaper cars. In fact we have a lot of businesses that are profiting from the current situation - Hurtigruten etc. . Also add the fact that our roads are dead end and do not connect other countries with each other (meaning we only use it for domestic transport), and the cars and the roads are left as a very easy cash cow for the gov.


There are many countries without a motor industry who have decent roads. Organisations like NAF should be lobbying for better roads, as should road transport companies, bad roads cost them time, excess fuel consumption and increased maintenance. I think the amount of goods transported by Hurtigruten is pretty limited these day, I often watch them unloading in Molde, normally it's only a single pallet, sometimes a car but more ofthen than not nothing.



Fargo Wolf said:


> The Hurtigruten, while still playing an important role in passenger transportation, is now more a tourist thing. While you "can" get your car or motorcycle onboard (the vessel is not a RO-RO), it's geared more towards those travelling without a vehicle..


I don't even think it's important for passanger transportation anymore, Hurtigruten is now mostly catering for tourists

It's also very expensive taking your car on board, plus they have size limites, a Transit highcube van for example if too big.



Fargo Wolf said:


> Ferries fill in most highway gaps, though there is a need for improvement in service, both in terms of scheduling


Ferries only fill in the gaps where a tunnel of bridge hasn't been built or in areas where there isn't enough patronage to justify a bridge or tunnel. A lot of ferry links are being replaced as quickly as possible.



Fargo Wolf said:


> It all comes down to cost. Yes, there are several places where the road network needs to be improved, but, given the small population, it's not financially feasible, or require very expensive tolls.


It does come down to cost, I believe the current network is costing the country billions every year in loast revenue, it makes Norwegian business less competitive. The road network needs to be fixed, you are just voicing the typical govt response, small population, not financially feasible....it's just complete BS.



Galro said:


> Not a single person driver through Norway to get to Russia, Sweden or Finland. Hence they are dead end in the sense that it is only used by the people living/visiting this country, and it is not a thoroughfare like German or Denmarks road network is.


Just because people don't drive through Norway isn't a good enough excuse for the poor quality of Norways roads.



Fargo Wolf said:


> It used to be a major transport link between the North and the West of country. We also have had many large wharf and shipping companies earning money on crappy road network, while we have historically had none large car manufacturers or similar pushing for more a car-friendly politic.


Which is why it's costing Norwegian industry a fortune in transport. As above there are many countries without a motor industy who have better roads than Norway, New Zealand is one such example, Ireland is another.

I'm surprised that many of Norway's E routes aren't in danger of losing E route status given the criteria for an E route.

The following design standards should be applied to Euroroutes unless there are exceptional circumstances (such as mountain passes etc.):

*Built-up areas shall be by-passed if they constitute a hindrance or a danger.
*The roads should preferably be motorways or express roads (unless traffic density is low so that there is no congestion on an ordinary road).
*They should be homogeneous and be designed for at least 80 km/h (very exceptionally 60 km/h). Motorways for at least 100 km/h.
*Gradients should not exceed 8% on roads designed for 60 km/h, decreasing to 4% on roads designed for 120 km/h traffic.
*The radius of curved sections of road should be a minimum of 120 m on roads designed for 60 km/h rising to 1000 m on roads designed for 140 km/h.
*"Stopping distance visibility" should be at least 70 m on roads designed for 60 km/h, rising to 300 m on roads designed for 140 km/h.
*Lane width should be at least 3.5 m on straight sections of road. This guarantees adequate clearance for any vehicle having a superstructure of width 2.55 m which is the maximum specified in EU directive 96/53/EC. and 2.6 m specified by some countries.
*The shoulder is recommended to be at least 2.5 m on ordinary roads and 3.25 m on motorways.
*Central reservations should be at least 3 m unless there is a barrier between the two carriageways.
*Overhead clearance should be not less than 4.5 m.
*Railway intersections should be at different levels.

These requirements are meant to be followed for road construction.


----------



## Galro

KiwiRob said:


> There are many countries without a motor industry who have decent roads.


I doubt it is many countries without a motor industry that has decent roads as there simply very few countries without one. However I never said that it was necessary, but one sure ass hell would have helped. 




KiwiRob said:


> Just because people don't drive through Norway isn't a good enough excuse for the poor quality of Norways roads.


And just because people don't drive through Norway is no excuse your lack of ability to read. I never said it was an excuse, however it does means that foreign government aren't pressuring us to solve the problems.


----------



## KiwiRob

Galro said:


> I doubt it is many countries without a motor industry that has decent roads as there simply very few countries without one. However I never said that it was necessary, but one sure ass hell would have helped.


There are many countries in Europe with good roads which don't have a motor industry, The Baltic States, Croatia, Solvenia, Greece, Switzerland.....



Galro said:


> And just because people don't drive through Norway is no excuse your lack of ability to read. I never said it was an excuse, however it does means that foreign government aren't pressuring us to solve the problems.


Not countries AFAIK but I the UN have been having a go at Norway recently about the state of Norway roads..



> Norway’s roads fail UN standards
> 
> 
> August 12, 2011
> 
> Many of Norway’s main highways are not up to standards set by UN agreements to which the country is party.
> 
> Newspaper Aftenposten reports that many of the main highways in Norway, known as European highways because they are part of the continental “E-road network” and use the network’s signage, do not follow rules laid down in a 1992 UN document. The UN document sets a number of standards for the most important roads in Europe.
> 
> Among the breaches is the fact that Norway is building new two-lane European highways without concrete step barriers (otherwise known as Jersey walls or Jersey barriers). Speaking to Aftenposten, Vilrid Femoen of the Information Council for Road Traffic described Norway’s breaches of the UN standards as “systematic,” adding that Norway’s own framework for road standards was below the level agreed at the UN.
> 
> Some critics believe that Norway’s highways could lose their status, although the UN agreements apparently do not have the power to do that.


----------



## Galro

KiwiRob said:


> There are many countries in Europe with good roads which don't have a motor industry, The Baltic States, Croatia, Solvenia, Greece, Switzerland.....


Both Switzerland and Greece have motor industries. The baltic states are small, small countries not very comparable. The countries also relies heavily upon foreign investments in their production sectors etc. which means that good infrastructure connecting them to the rest of the continent/investors is even more important than here. 



KiwiRob said:


> Not countries AFAIK but I the UN have been having a go at Norway recently about the state of Norway roads..


Not comparable with the pressure you would get from the rest of the Nordic if Norway had Denmarks geographical position.


----------



## KiwiRob

Switzerland and Greece do not assemble or manufacture motor vehicles, it was only in 2007 when Switzerland lifted it's ban on motorsport. The Baltic states may be small, they are also poor in comparison to Norway, if they can afford quality roods so should Norway. NZ doesn't have a motor industry either, nor is it as rich, but it has better roads, roads which are also built in challenging areas like Norway. 

Norways geographic position isn't an excuse, you really should be in govt, you're reading from their playbook on reason why we have shit roads in this country, you can come up with all the excuses in the book but it still doesn't make up for the simple fact that roads in this country are the worst in Europe, Norwegian deserve better, they at the very least warrant all the money which is collected in road taxes, vehicle registration and fuel tax to be spent on the roads.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

What happens to all the money anyway? Norway's GDP per capita is almost twice that of the Netherlands though Norway doesn't strike me as being particularly more wealthy. Social security is more or less comparable.

What is the annual road budget of Norway?


----------



## Galro

KiwiRob said:


> Switzerland and Greece do not assemble or manufacture motor vehicles, it was only in 2007 when Switzerland lifted it's ban on motorsport.


I didn't say they manufactured. 


KiwiRob said:


> The Baltic states may be small, they are also poor in comparison to Norway, if they can afford quality roods so should Norway. NZ doesn't have a motor industry either, nor is it as rich, but it has better roads, roads which are also built in challenging areas like Norway.
> 
> Norways geographic position isn't an excuse, you really should be in govt, you're reading from their playbook on reason why we have shit roads in this country, you can come up with all the excuses in the book but it still doesn't make up for the simple fact that roads in this country are the worst in Europe, Norwegian deserve better, they at the very least warrant all the money which is collected in road taxes, vehicle registration and fuel tax to be spent on the roads.


I don't excuse it, I tell you why it is like that. Is it how it should be? No. However most economics do rely on proper roads to trade etc., while Norway have historically been more concerned about the sea and no other countries needs our roads either. That's due to our geography.


----------



## Galro

ChrisZwolle said:


> What is the annual road budget of Norway?


The number I found for 2011 says 15 milliarder Norwegian kroner or about 1,90 billions euro.

That's from this forum so I don't know how accurate they are:
http://debatt.sol.no/content/veibudsjettet-2011


----------



## KiwiRob

ChrisZwolle said:


> What happens to all the money anyway? Norway's GDP per capita is almost twice that of the Netherlands though Norway doesn't strike me as being particularly more wealthy. Social security is more or less comparable.
> 
> What is the annual road budget of Norway?


I'd also like to know the answer. I believe taxation collected from fuel tax and vehicle registration is something like 60 billion per year, less than 25% is spent on roads. 



Galro said:


> I didn't say they manufactured.


The component industry isn't going to lobby for better roads, Norway also has companies that make components, by your reasoning that is enough to make the government invest in roading, but they don't.



Galro said:


> I don't excuse it, I tell you why it is like that. Is it how it should be? No. However most economics do rely on proper roads to trade etc., while Norway have historically been more concerned about the sea and no other countries needs our roads either. That's due to our geography.


Not anymore and not for a long time has most local Norwegian trade gone via the sea. Post, food, fuel, all sorts of things go via road freight not on coastal ships. Norway needs better roads period.


----------



## Galro

KiwiRob said:


> The component industry isn't going to lobby for better roads, Norway also has companies that make components, by your reasoning that is enough to make the government invest in roading, but they don't.


You know that GM Europes hq is in Switzerland, right? You also know that there have been Swiss car makers in the past like Monteverdi, right? Things like that do help paint a better pictures of the car industry than what they have here. 



KiwiRob said:


> Not anymore and not for a long time has most local Norwegian trade gone via the sea. Post, food, fuel, all sorts of things go via road freight not on coastal ships. Norway needs better roads period.


Yes, it does and I vote accordingly and I think others should to. The question I answer wasn't if Norway needed better roads though, but why we have the current lack of them. Our lack of historic dependence on our road network have meant that the politicians had the opportunity to completely ignore them while the big companies were more concerned about saving their wharfs.


----------



## KiwiRob

Galro said:


> You know that GM Europes hq is in Switzerland, right? You also know that there have been Swiss car makers in the past like Monteverdi, right? Things like that do help paint a better pictures of the car industry than what they have here.


GM Europe, I hope you're not confusing them with Adam Opel AG, who are headquartered in Rüsselsheim, Germany, they do not report to GM Europe. GM Europe is only responsible for Chevrolet branded vehicles. There is no GM vehicle manufacturing in Switzerland, there never has been.

Monteverdi, you're having a laugh, one tiny insignificant long closed down manufacturer that only made one original car the 375S, which had a chassis built in Germany, a body built in Italy mated to a Chrysler engine assembled in Switzerland does not constitute a motor industry. All the other cars they built were slightly modified Plymouth's. Think built more cars than Monteverdi ever did.



Galro said:


> Yes, it does and I vote accordingly and I think others should to. The question I answer wasn't if Norway needed better roads though, but why we have the current lack of them. Our lack of historic dependence on our road network have meant that the politicians had the opportunity to completely ignore them while the big companies were more concerned about saving their wharfs.


I think your reasoning is wrong, the real reason IMO on why the govt hasn't built a decent road network in Norway is entirely due to incompetence and a dislike of the motor-vehicle. I also blame the Norwegian people for not getting angry, no other country has roads as bad as Norways, no other country in Europe would allow it, it's got nothing to do with not having a motor industry or are a transit country from one place to another, the fact is the Norwegian govt has let down the Norwegian people, its transport industry and its economy for decades.

It's not only roads it's also rail, same deal, decades of neglect.


----------



## Uppsala

Look at Ireland. They don't have a motor industry. And people don't drive through Ireland to go to another country. But they have a good motorway network now.


----------



## koloite

I looked up the Norwegian national transportation plans for the period 2010-2019 (http://www.ntp.dep.no/2010-2019/pdf/Planforslaget_lavopploselig.pdf). It's in Norwegian, so it's not that accessible to everyone. It contains plans for sea-, air-, and road transportation.

A quote from the summary of the report:


> Innsatsen på vegsiden vil først og fremst bli rettet mot
> mindre utbedringer, sikkerhet, kollektivtrafikk, universell
> utforming, sykkeltrafikk og hvileplasser for tungtrafikken.
> Slike tiltak gir god effekt og måloppnåelse i forhold til
> kostnadene. Prioriteringene innebærer at de økonomiske
> rammene for store prosjekter er lave. Midler til store investeringsprosjekter
> foreslås først og fremst å brukes til å fullføre
> de prosjekter som inngår i handlingsprogrammet for
> perioden 2006–2009. Innenfor planrammen er det i tillegg
> funnet plass til oppstart av ti nye prosjekter for om lag
> 2,5 mrd. kr. De nye prosjektene ligger i hovedsak utenfor
> høytrafikkerte områder. Det foreslås et forbedret tilbud på
> stamvegferjene, slik at det blir bedre tilpasset næringslivets
> og trafikantenes behov.


Basic translation is: The efforts for roads will primarily be aimed at small improvements, safety, public transport, bicycles and rest areas for trucks. These kinds of measurements are the most cost effective. These priorities mean that the total budget for new investments will be low. Instead, money already reserved for large investments will be used to finish off projects already mentioned in the plans for 2006-2009.

Don't expect any large motorway projects in the coming 10 years in Norway...


----------



## koloite

Another quote which indicates what the Government thinks of car traffic:



> Transportetatene mener at både køprising og jernbanesatsing
> er viktig og riktig, men at dette ikke alene kan bidra til
> å nå målet for reduksjon av klimagassutslipp. For å redusere
> det totale transportomfanget og endre transportmiddelfordelingen
> på nasjonalt nivå, må bruk av bil reduseres
> også utenom de største byene.


Translation: The transportation departments (rail, sea, air, road) think that congestion charge and prioritizing rail are important and correct, but this alone will not be enough to reach the goals for CO2-reduction. In order to reduce the total transportation needs, and in order to change the transportation mode distribution on a national level, the usage of cars must be reduced, also outside the larger cities.


----------



## koloite

A couple of graphs showing the distribution of goods transport within Norway (excluding import/export)










Sjø = Sea
Veg = Road
Jernbane = Rail road

The first graph shows the total goods transport within Norway, the second graph the total goods transport within Norway for distances more than 300km (i.e. excluding local/short transport)


----------



## katia72

The problem is not only highways that are not built but the maintenance of roads. Since I live in Oslo, I can only comment on this town. And must say that the road standards in Oslo is miserable. Have just returned from short trip to Zurich and I'm positively surprised by the standard of roads and, not least over how often the trams are running. Totally incredible

Someone here earlier said NAF that do nothing for Norwegian motorists ... I can not imagine that there is still someone who cares to be a member of those


----------



## Durin

Some of you keep mentioning the typical government view on road building (a lot of excuses for not investing). However Norway has had many government changes during the past 20 years, having had an equal share of both Social Democratic and Liberal-Conservative governments in charge of road building. There seems to be more to it than just party politics. 

Sure Norway has a car industry although no assembly is taking place. Just the amount of subcontractors supplying Saab, Volvo and Scania in Sweden is substantial.



koloite said:


> Translation: The transportation departments (rail, sea, air, road) think that congestion charge and prioritizing rail are important and correct, but this alone will not be enough to reach the goals for CO2-reduction. In order to reduce the total transportation needs, and in order to change the transportation mode distribution on a national level, the usage of cars must be reduced, also outside the larger cities.


The above is very interesting. No other country would not build roads in order to cut CO2 emissions as economic growth is equally important. Swedish governments, for example, has been very concious about the environment and a lot of the infrastructure budget was during the 90's geared towards expanding and upgrading the railways. Still, governments in Sweden have always acknowledged the fact that roads do not pollute, vehicles do.

As Uppsala mentions, Ireland built the majority part of its motorway and high quality road network in just a decade. So did Croatia. A lot is being blamed on population density in Norway, but good roads actually motivates growth in traffic, especially when rail transport is still not a viable alternative for fast journeys.


----------



## Suburbanist

The Norwegian should "go Spanish" and build at least an expressway Oslo-Tromsø


----------



## KiwiRob

katia72 said:


> Someone here earlier said NAF that do nothing for Norwegian motorists ... I can not imagine that there is still someone who cares to be a member of those


I'm a member of NAF, but only because of the 50øre per litre discount on fuel and a 25% discount for new tires.


----------



## ElviS77

ChrisZwolle said:


> What happens to all the money anyway? Norway's GDP per capita is almost twice that of the Netherlands though Norway doesn't strike me as being particularly more wealthy. Social security is more or less comparable.


Well, wages are higher on average, as is the cost of virtually everything. That makes a difference. Talking roads, our topography doesn't do us any favours, neither does the fact that there were few roads to begin with. In addition, Norwegian road development the past 50 years has been hampered with a political system that gives a lot of power to local and regional government. Thus, the promise of new roads may be used as a tool for local politicians and their bid for (re-)election. In fact, the only serious attempt on a national approach to build a coherent road network was Norsk Vegplan, launched by the Labour government in the early sixties. When they lost the 1965 election, the plan was thrown out. Since then, governments (Labour and Centre-Right) have stayed with the regional approach (in reality, all Norwegian national roads were actually regional until the invention of the "stamvei" system in the nineties).


----------



## Jonesy55

ChrisZwolle said:


> What happens to all the money anyway? Norway's GDP per capita is almost twice that of the Netherlands though Norway doesn't strike me as being particularly more wealthy. Social security is more or less comparable.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Government_Pension_Fund_of_Norway


----------



## ElviS77

Jonesy55 said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Government_Pension_Fund_of_Norway


That one is, of course, also an important issue... :lol:


----------



## MattiG

KiwiRob said:


> Back to the roads I can't understand why the govt has a problem with developing an efficient road network, the cost to the economy each year must run into the tens of billions of NOK; Norwegian business are already on the back foot due to the high labour costs then they have to deal with excessive transport costs due to poor roads.
> 
> It takes a truck 8-9 hours (7-8 in a car) to drive the 520 km from Molde to Oslo, it took me 9 hours to drive from Milan to Hamburg, which is twice the distance. I just can't understand why building a modern, efficient, safe highway network isn't a national priority.


I think there might be room for some reality in this discussion, too.

Norway is currently a wealthy country because on the oil. However, the oil runs out some day. In order to not follow the Dubai Syndrome (the bankers' grandfathers drove camels and their grandsons will drive camels), the country does not use all the excess money today. When Norway runs out of the oil, the roads cannot be sold to get money.

The comparison to Germany and Italy is far from being fair. In total, the area of those countries is twice the area of Norway but they have 30+ times more taxpayers. Most of Norway is mountainous, and located on arctic latitudes, thus making the road much more expensive per a kilometre in average than in most other countries. For example, the main road E6 runs about 2600 kilometres from Svinesund to Kirkenes; about the distance between Hamburg and Lisbon. With the exception of few hundred kilometers on the tundra north of the Arctic Circle, the road runs in a very challenging terrain.

An extra added-cost attribute is the sea. As you can see on the map, the south and west coast is extremely scattered. Huge amounts of money has been invested in bridges and undersea tunnels to create ferry-free connections. For example, the projected building cost of the Hardanger bridge is 300 million euro; the cost of 60 kilometres of motorway at a typical cost of 5 million euro per kilometre.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Road project costs are a joke anyway compared to the annual government budget. For instance, if they would double the Dutch road budget, the annual government expenses would increase by only 1.5%.


----------



## Jonesy55

ElviS77 said:


> That one is, of course, also an important issue... :lol:


It's amazing how many global corporations I find that have 'Government of Norway, via its funds' listed as one of the major shareholders. hno: you guys are buying up the world!


----------



## ElviS77

ChrisZwolle said:


> Road project costs are a joke anyway compared to the annual government budget. For instance, if they would double the Dutch road budget, the annual government expenses would increase by only 1.5%.


You're absolutely right. Still, it's unlikely to happen, as one of the biggest issues when you've dealt with the GFC better than most and have avoided any serious Euro trouble aftermath, that everyone wants money for everything, is that everyone gets a little, but noone gets all that much... That keeps everyone somewhat unhappy, creating a strange form of checks and balances. Nevertheless, quite a few publicly funded institutions are in dire straits, and unless something is done soon, not only our roads and railroads will need major upgrading. 

I know this sounds like words from the kind of populist I'm not, but Norway isn't all hugs and puppies. Yes, we are in urgent need of a proper roadway makeover, even though the motorway bonanza some menmbers promote - in my opinion - is overkill, but without respected and influencial infrastructure-concerned politicians, the issue is going to lose out to health care, pension funds and - possibly - even education. No matter who is in office, as these issues HAVE respected and influential proponents.


----------



## ElviS77

Jonesy55 said:


> It's amazing how many global corporations I find that have 'Government of Norway, via its funds' listed as one of the major shareholders. hno: you guys are buying up the world!


Even though that might be an overstatement, I know what you are getting at. It's even quite easy to explain in a historical-political context, the well-being of future generation is frightfully important to a noveaux riche country like Norway: we have been able to develop a (reasonably) functioning welfare state and the oil wealth is our way of keeping it in an era where many other Western countries may have to downsize it considerably.


----------



## KiwiRob

MattiG said:


> I think there might be room for some reality in this discussion, too.
> 
> Norway is currently a wealthy country because on the oil. However, the oil runs out some day. In order to not follow the Dubai Syndrome (the bankers' grandfathers drove camels and their grandsons will drive camels), the country does not use all the excess money today. When Norway runs out of the oil, the roads cannot be sold to get money..


I'm not suggesting using all the oil money, I'm suggesting using all the money collected on taxes associoated with roads and motor vehicles to be used on roads, at the moment barelyu any of it is, the rest dissappears into the govt coffers to be used on other activities. Investing on roads (and rail) is an investment in the future which will help Norways economy when the oil runs out.



MattiG said:


> The comparison to Germany and Italy is far from being fair. In total, the area of those countries is twice the area of Norway but they have 30+ times more taxpayers. Most of Norway is mountainous, and located on arctic latitudes, thus making the road much more expensive per a kilometre in average than in most other countries. For example, the main road E6 runs about 2600 kilometres from Svinesund to Kirkenes; about the distance between Hamburg and Lisbon. With the exception of few hundred kilometers on the tundra north of the Arctic Circle, the road runs in a very challenging terrain..


But the E6 North of Olso almost all the way to Trondheim runs in a valley, it's heavily trafficked and should be motorway standard, it wouldn't be difficult terrain to build in.



MattiG said:


> An extra added-cost attribute is the sea. As you can see on the map, the south and west coast is extremely scattered. Huge amounts of money has been invested in bridges and undersea tunnels to create ferry-free connections. For example, the projected building cost of the Hardanger bridge is 300 million euro; the cost of 60 kilometres of motorway at a typical cost of 5 million euro per kilometre.


And most if not all of those bridges and tunnels are funed via tolls, this is wrong, if we have to use tolls to pay for all roading improvements why should be pay vehicle registration and fuel taxes?


----------



## Kjello0

MattiG said:


> the cost of 60 kilometres of motorway at a typical cost of 5 million euro per kilometre.


In Norway the average cost of 1 kilometre of Motorway is €19,5 million (150 million NOK). Tunnels usually cost twice as much.


----------



## cinxxx

Kjello0 said:


> In Norway the average cost of 1 kilometre of Motorway is €19,5 million (150 million NOK). Tunnels usually cost twice as much.


WTF!? :gaah:
And I thought Romania's A3 motorway price was to high with over 10mil...


----------



## ChrisZwolle

That's a fairly normal price, 10 - 20 million for rural motorways.


----------



## ElviS77

KiwiRob said:


> But the E6 North of Olso almost all the way to Trondheim runs in a valley, it's heavily trafficked and should be motorway standard, it wouldn't be difficult terrain to build in.


Well, the Dovre plateau and the climb on each side would be an issue, both due to environmental concerns and the topography. Further north, the E6 isn't all that busy until you get to Støren. Gudbrandsdalen - Lillehammer to the Dovre plateau - is pretty busy, particularly in the summer, and at least the southern section should be built to motorway standard. However, the 2+2/2+1/1+1 expressway planned (partially u/c) isn't too bad a solution: current AADT numbers are lower than 10000, north of Otta even below 5000. An Oslo-Trondheim motorway is unrealistic, in my opinion, but both the E6 and the rv 3 should be improved to expressway/divided 1+1/2+1 highway standard.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

Only about 135 remote km of the ~520 km E6 Oslo-Trondheim have less than 4000 AADT. Along RV 3 the length with < 4000 AADT is less than 250 km, but this where all the semi trucks go because it is shorter and less hilly. Surely the traffic would be at least 6000 AADT and increasing on the whole route on the opening day, and on most places more, if they built a motorway throughfare. The increase will come from collection of traffic from both current E6 and Rv 3 and transfer from the massive TRD-OSL air traffic, Norway's busiest air route. Some US interstates have in the order of 2000 AADT.

Such a motorway can only be built along the Rv 3 corridor as the E6 is too steep and will never be the preferred choise for truck traffic unless a very long tunnel is bored. Furthermore, the terrain along the current Rv 3 corridor is ideal for road construction and will be considerable cheaper than the 20 M€/km discussed above. Moreover, there will not be any significant local environmental conflicts. Both issues are the opposite along Gudbrandsdalen which is narrow, winding, and have more precious Norwegian farms...

If Norway become serious with its infrastructure it should build such a motorway together with a possible HSR. We can afford it, and it will pay off in the long run.

It might seem unrealistic under the current government, but it is still the right thing to work for.









Now, dear Elvis and I have discussed this before (just follow the link in my signature and see the surrounding discussion), so I am already logging off this discussion.....


----------



## Ingenioren

*17km new Rv2 (E16) starts construction this autumn*









_Easternmost section Slomarka - Kongsvinger (Map: Statens Vegvesen)_

This section has yet again gotten upgraded specifics (started of as a 2-lane expressway) and is now going to be built as a 20 meter wide motorway with 100km/h speed limit. Includes 3 2-plane intersections and a round-about as the road enters Kongsvinger. Plan is to open this section for trafic during 2014.

As for the remaining Nybakk - Slomarka, it's stipulated to start construction sometime between 2014-2019...


----------



## ElviS77

54°26′S 3°24′E;83551549 said:


> Now, dear Elvis and I have discussed this before (just follow the link in my signature and see the surrounding discussion), so I am already logging off this discussion.....


I most certainly don't intend to restart THAT debate, I was merely pointing out that I don't think we'll ever see a Norwegian motorway network of such extent. No matter who's in power.


----------



## KiwiRob

ElviS77 said:


> I most certainly don't intend to restart THAT debate, I was merely pointing out that I don't think we'll ever see a Norwegian motorway network of such extent. No matter who's in power.


This is where people power should come into effect, the problem is people here are to timid and the govt never listens.


----------



## MattiG

Kjello0 said:


> In Norway the average cost of 1 kilometre of Motorway is €19,5 million (150 million NOK).


Yes, about four times as much as typically in Europe. That explains a lot.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

The average in Germany is € 26.7 million per kilometer.


----------



## MattiG

ChrisZwolle said:


> The average in Germany is € 26.7 million per kilometer.


Well...

That is not the building cost but kind of a national economic cost analysis. It is the total sum including administrative cost, planning cost for 20 years, etc. The actual average building cost is 6.7 million per km. In addition, about 5 million comes from noise barriers and telematics.

Your mileage may vary. Cost to build the A100 trough the city of Berlin is 100+ million euro per kilometre. 

Anyway, the decision to build a road is typically not done based on the cost but on the cost vs benefit analysis. The costs are real, and the benefits are speculative.


----------



## ElviS77

KiwiRob said:


> This is where people power should come into effect, the problem is people here are to timid and the govt never listens.


Well, since Norway is and has been working pretty well over the past decades, I don't really see either as a major issue... I'm not saying things cannot (and possibly even should) be improved - also in terms of road construction - but not even that will lead to thousands of kms of motorway.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

^^ You gotta be kidding, "possible even should"? Sounds like you are quite happy with the current situation, even on the road situation and development. The only reason Norway can be percieved to "work pretty well" is that massive oil investments can pay for an equal massive public sector. Still, there seems to be very little left for infrastructure. The ironic fact is that the current government did not win the popular vote in 2009, neither did they do so in 2005, i.e. they are only in power due to the election system.

Now this government has produced another dissapointing KVU (Consept choice study).
This time for the corridor 120 km Trondheim-Steinkjer, the busiest traffic corridor of central Norway. http://www.vegvesen.no/_attachment/261687/binary/464557
More detailshttp://www.vegvesen.no/Vegprosjekter/trondheimsteinkjer/KVU-rapport

Here the road and railway authorities recommend the modest "moderniseringalternativet"
On most of the route (Stjørdal -Steinkjer), they will only go for 1+2 / 1+1. Traffic is in many places already above 12 000 AADT which is the 30 years limit for building four lanes in Norway. Perhaps even more strange is Trondheim-Stjørdal, where they only will have a narrow motorway, although the traffic is already approaching 20 000 AADT, which is the limit for a normal motorway. Expansion here from the current mostly two-lane road is delayed to phase two. i.e. some time after 2020, "because the stretch is already tolled". What is the point with the Norwegian highway standards when they never seems to be applied for new projects, at least not in our region?

What they should have pursued is of course a motorway for the whole length, with full width Trondheim-Stjørdal. This would only cost 25 % more. The argument they have against it is that they claim that the increase from 90 km / h to 100 km /h would only lead to 14 % time savings. However, then they are not looking at congestion issues, the fact that 1+1 roads are easily blocked (in this case often without alternative routes), and that the motorway speed limit most likely will be higher than 100 in a few years. Why the hell waste a lot of money on a road that will be outdated in a few years?

Most worrisome perhaps, is that they recommend Stjørdal-Åsen following the old winding coastal route in the first phase which I thinkt is senseless. The right thing to do here would clearly be to build a motorway tunnel which would be much safer and faster, and they plan dig a railway tunnel here anyway.

With the chosen alternative they will spend almost as much on railway as on road. However, even with the most optimistic figures the projected traffic on railway is less than 25 % even with high road tolls, and not very dependent on concept selection.


----------



## KiwiRob

ElviS77 said:


> Well, since Norway is and has been working pretty well over the past decades, I don't really see either as a major issue... I'm not saying things cannot (and possibly even should) be improved - also in terms of road construction - but not even that will lead to thousands of kms of motorway.


But it hasn't, there has been under-investment in roads, railways, hospitals and education for decades, the only people who the system benefits are public servants and people who are on the benefit, i.e. those getting a free ride on the backs of the Norwegian taxpayer

All the govt appears to concern itself with is to stash away as much money as possible in the oil fund whilst neglecting the issues that need investing in today.


----------



## Grauthue

54°26′S 3°24′E;83649165 said:


> Here the road and railway authorities recommend the modest "moderniseringalternativet"
> On most of the route (Stjørdal -Steinkjer), they will only go for 1+2 / 1+1. Traffic is in many places already above 12 000 AADT which is the 30 years limit for building four lanes in Norway. Perhaps even more strange is Trondheim-Stjørdal, where they only will have a narrow motorway, although the traffic is already approaching 20 000 AADT, which is the limit for a normal motorway. Expansion here from the current mostly two-lane road is delayed to phase two. i.e. some time after 2020, "because the stretch is already tolled". What is the point with the Norwegian highway standards when they never seems to be applied for new projects, at least not in our region?


I was in a good mood from seeing progress on E6 further south, and then you come along ruining my good mood with *facts* :mad2:

This stretch should absolutely be 4 lanes all the way (although long sections would probably by fine with the "narrow 4-lane" standard). What kind of retards came up with this. Have they not learned anything from costly projects in the past where they had to reconstruct again a few years later because more capacity was needed?

If money is the problem I say the state should be blamed for taking a bigger part of the bill (or all of it).


----------



## ElviS77

54°26′S 3°24′E;83649165 said:


> ^^ You gotta be kidding, "possible even should"? Sounds like you are quite happy with the current situation, even on the road situation and development. The only reason Norway can be percieved to "work pretty well" is that massive oil investments can pay for an equal massive public sector. Still, there seems to be very little left for infrastructure. The ironic fact is that the current government did not win the popular vote in 2009, neither did they do so in 2005, i.e. they are only in power due to the election system.


Please... I don't intend to make this into either a political debate or a debate about the political system. I was only pointing out that, although not perfect, the system works reasonably well. Also, I pointed out that ours is a system of consensus, not one of violent conflict and dramatic change. Evolution, not revolution, that's the Norwegian way. Thus, it's highly unlikely that we will see radical changes *no matter who's in power*. I'm not saying that it's perfect, I'm not saying that I wouldn't like to see an increased funding of important infrastructure, but I am saying that believing that we will see a massive increase in construction over night, is quite naive.


----------



## ElviS77

http://snubba.hin.no/samferdsel/utfordringer.pdf

illustrates my point quite well.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

^^ The way you expressed yourself it seemed like you were content with everything in Norway, including the road infrastructure. Note sure where the violent conflict is coming in, or exactly what point Boge is illustrating for you, but I am pretty sure this is a pointless discussion.....


Grauthue said:


> I was in a good mood from seeing progress on E6 further south, and then you come along ruining my good mood with *facts* :mad2:
> 
> This stretch should absolutely be 4 lanes all the way (although long sections would probably by fine with the "narrow 4-lane" standard). What kind of retards came up with this. Have they not learned anything from costly projects in the past where they had to reconstruct again a few years later because more capacity was needed?
> 
> If money is the problem I say the state should be blamed for taking a bigger part of the bill (or all of it).


Completly agree on all above.


----------



## ElviS77

54°26′S 3°24′E;83666044 said:


> ^^ The way you expressed yourself it seemed like you were content with everything in Norway, including the road infrastructure. Note sure where the violent conflict is coming in, or exactly what point Boge is illustrating for you, but I am pretty sure this is a pointless discussion......


No doubt, pointless... 

I stand by what I've been saying for years, summed up a few days ago: "we are in urgent need of a proper roadway makeover".

That does not, however, prevent me from accepting political reality. No government (Labour, Conservative, Centrist, Centre-right or Centre-left) has done anything remotely like this the past 45 years (a point I've also made quite a few times, I just thought the Boge presentation was clear on the subject. If you didn't like it, fine...), and I cannot see where any serious and/or realistic change is to come from. 

Finally, "violent" is mainly used rhetorically, as hyperbole. It is meant to underline the notion of Norway as a country where we tend to seek political consensus. Nonetheless, both real "violent conflict" and - particularly - "radical change" are more common in other Western countries.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

The problem in Norway, much as in the United Kingdom and Belgium, is that no real progress is ever made, causing any plan that goes beyond a dozen kilometers of new motorway being titled as a "pipe dream". Mentality needs to change. The Netherlands is a good example that things can be changed. We went from a complete stagnation to one of the biggest construction sites in Europe in just a few years.


----------



## ElviS77

ChrisZwolle said:


> The problem in Norway, much as in the United Kingdom and Belgium, is that no real progress is ever made, causing any plan that goes beyond a dozen kilometers of new motorway being titled as a "pipe dream". Mentality needs to change. The Netherlands is a good example that things can be changed. We went from a complete stagnation to one of the biggest construction sites in Europe in just a few years.


No doubt that a change in mentality might get us a little bit further, but to get something done for real, that would need to be combined with a systemic change in which local government is stripped of much of their power. Promoting such ideas equals political suicide in rural Norway. Furthermore, local and national environmental and NIMBY groups are quite influential and, in addition, for a majority of the population, road construction isn't *the* issue.


----------



## KiwiRob

Things need to be done as business will start to leave Norway, my CEO today announded that he was considering moving all production out of Norway, that's 500 manufacturing jobs gone, reasons for this are many but high transport costs are right up there, along with high wages and an over valued NOK.


----------



## Kjello0

ElviS77: Both KrF, Venstre, Høyre and FrP is in favour of using project financing. Which will make a lot easier to finance road projects in Norway.

In the main corridors,
Oslo area - Trøndelag
Oslo area - Møre og Romsdal
Oslo area - Sogn og Fjordane
Oslo area - Bergen area
Oslo area - Stavanger area
Oslo area - Southern Norway
Southern Norway - Western Norway
Western Norway - Trøndelag
Trøndelag - Northern Norway

the total need of investments is about 650 billion NOK to get a modern network of motorways and expressways. 

The network in these corridors is about 5 200 km. Mainly it's my opinion that these stretches should be minimum expressway. However, I understand and agree that it's a waste of money to build expressways where the traffic barely reaches 1000 aadt on longer stretches. So high standard rural roads should be accepted on certain stretches. This counts especially for Finnmark.

These 5201 km of road consist of 2 800 km of motorway, 1 775 km of expressway and 626 km of high standard rural road.

To build and upgrade all these stretches would take 30 years. And will as I've said cost about 650 billion NOK. 

A company named something like "Den Norske Stats hovedriksveger SF" should own and finance these roads. The bill should be split by the government and the users. And be financed over a 30 year period. This gives an annual cost of almost 22 billions. 11 billions on the government and 11 billions on the users. This company borrow money from banks and/or the government to finance the building. And then repay it using tolls and annual money from the government.

The government currently use 7,45 billions on investments on roads today. In addition 3,45 billions from tolls is available for Statens Vegvesen. So that's a total of 10,9 billion NOK annually. On top of this the counties use an unknown amount.

Building a needed national route network should not lead to an decrease in investments on other roads. So the total amount used by the government should in the future be 13-14 billions instead of 7,45. Which of 11 billions goes to the company I've mentioned.

Norway should start using GPS as tolls.
http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/iriks/article4173095.ece

The total driven distance on roads in Norway was 42,6 billion km in 2010.
Of this I would say 3,1 billion would use the national route network. 1,7 billion of this is transport under 3,5 T. And 1,4 billion over 3,5 T. With a price tag of 2,5 kr per km for cars and 5 kr per km for trucks that would mean a total income of 11 billions a year. 

A truck going Bergen - Trondheim would then pay 2 730 kr in tolls compared to 3 975 kr in tolls and ferries today. While a truck going Oslo - Trondheim would have to pay 2 320 kr in tolls compared to 40 kr today. However, reduced fuel costs and reduced maintenance costs on trucks would mean that the total budget would go in plus even on Oslo - Trondheim.

Alternatively they can just add 2,25 kr in taxes on fuel. A total of 5 billion litre of car fuel was sold in Norway in 2010. So 2,25 kr tax on fuel would lead to 11,2 billions in income. That way all foreigners would be forced to pay for the roads as well.

Neither of these numbers are unreasonable or unrealistic.


----------



## ElviS77

Kjello0 said:


> ElviS77: Both KrF, Venstre, Høyre and FrP is in favour of using project financing. Which will make a lot easier to finance road projects in Norway.


I know. Nonetheless, that is no reason to believe that a new centre-right government will change things fundamentally. And 2800 kms of motorway by 2040 is, again, completely unrealistic. Even if things were to change somewhat. Not because it's impossible to do, but because there is no fundamental political agreement about doing it, ant there never will be.


----------



## Oslo 5

IceCheese said:


> As I said, it's "motorway-like". With the ramps and current alignment, it is at motorway-standard, and is very much percieveable by motorists as a free-way road, so something has obviously been done wrong when they keep (or built in the first place) the sidewalks. If not anything else, sign it 60, or paint/fence the sidewalks, I don't care, but this road should be changed now!


The plan is (or was) to rebuild the pavements into bus lanes as soon a new pedestrian and bike route was built, but this plan has not been prioritized in "Oslopakke 3"


----------



## Ingenioren

The bikeroad will start construction this or next year.


----------



## Ingenioren

A new law allowing taxing of congested roads to reduce traffic:

http://www.regjeringen.no/nb/dep/sd...-eit-verktoy-for-betre-miljo-o.html?id=661483


----------



## ChrisZwolle

a.k.a. pricing the poor off the road.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

On November 7th, 2011, 19 kilometers of E6 will open to traffic between Dal and Minnesund. Is this a motorway?


----------



## Ingenioren

Yes, it has 100km/h limit and looks like this - it's a widening of the old Olympic highway:








_(Photo: Jan Arne Sandholtbråten)_

Plans are to continue north with motorway standard untill Øyer with a round-about only for Rv4 intersection.


----------



## Satyricon84

Roads in Longyearbyen, Svalbard Islands










Pedestrian zone

















































































Hospital






















































Probably the northernmost Suzuki dealer in the world


----------



## cinxxx

^^So cool . I guess they are taken in summer?


----------



## Ingenioren

Yellow plates meaning they don't pay any road-tax or import tax...

On another note, here is a comparison of Rv4 in Nittedal:

Before:









After:









That extra lane was very much needed as aadt reaches 16000, but vegvesen removed it to save money and claims the climb isn't steep enough to require passing lane with todays standards. (The expressway was constructed in 2003.) Speedlimit is still 80km/h.


----------



## IceCheese

Sometimes I wonder if the employees of Vegvesenet and vegdirektoratet are mentally challenged.


----------



## Satyricon84

cinxxx said:


> ^^So cool . I guess they are taken in summer?


In spring, but almost summer


----------



## Ingenioren

*E39 Eikås tunnel*

1,5 km of new 4-lane E39 is out for bids in Bergen construction period spring 2012 - spring 2014. Including a flyover crossing E16 round-about. Altough this may become a local road already in 2017 when Nyborg tunnel is expected completed.









_(Eikås tunnel)_









_(Nyborg tunnel)_


----------



## Norsko

IceCheese said:


> Sometimes I wonder if the employees of Vegvesenet and vegdirektoratet are mentally challenged.


:lol: Well said!


----------



## bigmishu

Satyricon84 said:


> Roads in Longyearbyen, Svalbard Islands


Interesting number plate... Do you have a closer picture?


----------



## Satyricon84

Yes I have. Svalbard islands have own license plate


----------



## bigmishu

^^

Thank you 

Same format as norvegian plates, but another color.


----------



## Ingenioren

Layout for registrered vehicles not accessing public roads. Including tractors, snowmobiles, harbour and airport vehicles, do not pay road tax and lack registration tag. Reason why these plates are in Svalbard is the road system is private. Zn is the area code.


----------



## Satyricon84

Right, when they are "imported" on the mainland they get normal norwegian plate with the same registration of the black one


----------



## ChrisZwolle

19 kilometers of E6 opens today as a motorway between Dal and Minnesund.

Aftenbladet has an article about it:
http://www.aftenbladet.no/innenriks/Nye-E6-mot-Hamar-godt-over-halvferdig-2889633.html


----------



## katia72

4 years and only 43 km......this is a joke


----------



## Kjello0

Hansadyret said:


> 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.


----------



## MattiG

Kjello0 said:


> 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.



> 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.


----------



## Kjello0

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?


----------



## Hansadyret

MattiG said:


> 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.


----------



## MattiG

Kjello0 said:


> 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?


----------



## Bad_Hafen

EU should help finance only those roads that met the criteria they prescribed.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

^^ 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....


----------



## IceCheese

^^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/2011_04_07_rute_6a.pdf
and Rv3: http://www.ntp.dep.no/2014-2023/pdf/2011_04_07_rute_6b.pdf


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

^^ 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.


----------



## IceCheese

Ingenioren said:


> Some animations of E134 Kongsberg Bypass, construction period 2013-2017:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The tollboth at Fv286, Teigen is quite controversial...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aadt 2040.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2010.
> 
> http://laagendalsposten.no/bildegalleri/ny-e134-1.6320825





IceCheese said:


> 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-damaasen--saggrenda-blir-dyrere

hno:
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...


----------



## devo

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.


----------



## Ingenioren

I suppose it must be an upgrade to full motorway standard when they double the price like that...


----------



## Ingenioren

Recommendations for E39 Førde - Trondheim is out!









http://www.vegvesen.no/Om+Statens+v...yheter/Vis/_attachment/284950?_ts=133ca5b2210









http://www.vegvesen.no/Om+Statens+v...yheter/Vis/_attachment/284951?_ts=133ca5b7030









http://www.vegvesen.no/Om+Statens+v...yheter/Vis/_attachment/284953?_ts=133ca5bf500

Summary:
http://www.vegvesen.no/Om+Statens+v...yheter/Vis/_attachment/284948?_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.


----------



## devo

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.


----------



## Ingenioren

Just for being shorter via K4...


----------



## Kjello0

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.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

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?


----------



## Ingenioren

Yes you can even most private mountain roads...


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

^^
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.....











Kjello0 said:


> 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...


----------



## Ingenioren

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...


----------



## devo

I agree. Ideally they’d look at the entire E 39 stretch as one big important KVU. They do Kristiansand-Stavanger (Søgne-Ålgård) as a separate KVU, but Bergen-Trondheim should be one KVU, not five, seven, or whatever.

Some thoughts:
We have some charming environmentalists here in Kristiansand who believes that E 39 from central Kristiansand to Søgne (about 14 km) should be just like it is. Today, mostly a two-lane road with at-grade intersections, a traffic light (!) and some roundabouts, all this taking the load from some 20.000 vehicles a day. However, they do have a solution: Making people use a bicycle, or take the bus. Which will be in the same cue because everyone can’t use the bus unless you have like 400 of them. Also, boldly, they claim that the cue will _not_ be solved by a four-lane motorway. It will only add more cars, and cues, on a better road, they claim. Less fuel consumption because of better alignment and flow by the 20% of traffic which are lorries? No. Safety on a new road with central divider? Oh no problem, just take the bus because that will be safe enough...hno:

Somehow they magically seem to forget that east of Kristiansand there is free flowing traffic, on four-lane roads, in higher volumes than on E 39, and guess what? No cues. :bash: 
(Specific: There are some cues but they are not caused by the four lane road, but a narrowing from two to one lane at the end of it. This new road that they oppose _will theoretically_ solve this problem)

Obviously, the road authorities have better plans, they’ll go for full motorway standard. E 39 from Stavanger might be motorway, so it would be pathetic if it stopped 14 km from Kristiansand. But honestly, some of these people who are suggesting status quo on E 39 are politicians, and that just shows why roads are what roads are in Norway.

Thorstein


----------



## JeremyCastle

*impressions about Norwegian roads*

Been in Norway now since July. Here are some impressions and thoughts.

I. First, the worst quality roads I've seen in a developed country. I'm sorry to say that. Infrastructure in general is very mediocre, but on this post I will stick to roads.

II. Have driven on some terrible roads just before reaching a toll plaza!

III. The light in the middle of this roundabout(see google street view image) has never worked since I've been here. Perhaps the people in the houses on the hill complained enough that they decided to shut it off. Regardless, it is dark and dangerous at night, so where is all this road tax money going?











IV. Roundabout sizes for two lanes entering it are too small. In the UK, they would have larger roundabouts for more than one lane entering it.

V. Norwegians seem to lose all traffic sense when using a roundabout. Most fail to signal right when leaving a roundabout. Until recently, no one was taught to signal left when going left at a roundabout, but new drivers are being taught to signal left now thankfully.

VI. E-39 between Bergen and Volda violates(other E-roads in Norway as well) violates convention on European numbered roads. Plenty of areas have no centre lines and the curvature is too sharp and some sections are so narrow, that vehicles have to crawl past each other to avoid a collision. There is a bridge on the E6 that is so narrow, that it is in essence a one lane road. In the summertime, this is an exercise in frustration, especially with all the Dutch and German rv's.

Why hasn't Norway been taken to task by the UNECE or anybody else, for failing to live up to the proper European road standards?

http://www.unece.org/leginstr/trans.html

VII. Norwegians are excellent at linking communities within a kommune or an nearby kommune. For example, millions of krone will be spent building a bridge to an island of just a few thousand people(if that), or to build a tunnel linking two small towns a few kms apart(instead of widening the existing narrow road), but linking major cities within the country or even the same county is seen as outrageous or over the top. For example, there are no plans to build a 4 lane highway between Bergen and Voss, two cities within the same county even thought traffic can get quite busy, especially in the spring and summer.

VIII. I know this has been talked about on this thread, bu the fact that there is no 4 lane highway between Oslo and Trondheim is just ridiculous. Building this road would be quite simple due to the flat topography(at least compared to other Norwegian areas).

The main reason I hear to not build it is that north of Lillehammer, the AADT falls to about 3000. But are they taking into account that if that road is built, the traffic from the rv3, will most likely divert itself to the 4 lane E6? Perhaps convert the rv3 to the 4 lane freeway and resign it as the E6. Also, air travel traffic will go down between Trondheim and Oslo which would certainly increase the AADT to a decent level.

IX. There are some attempts at a national strategy. For example, there is on the Norwegians Roads Ministry website a plan to make the entire E39 in Western Norway ferry free. However, at the glacial pace this is taking place, I might be senior citizen by then. It seems that farmers in this country have an over proportional amount of veto power when it comes to road building. Some roads end up being much more expensive with more tunnels, than sometimes necessary because of the demands of famers.

X. I've seen so many roads that are narrow with trucks inching along. Where I am now, there is the E16 linking road, the 580 (green box with dashed white lines on it saying E16) that goes up from Nesttun to Indre Arna. Companies in this area send trucks up that road, but in two places the road suddenly narrows and the centre yellow lines disappear. Suddenly everything slows down and the trucks and everyone else barely move along not mention the added danger. The failure to understand that by building a comprehensive road network, you attract businesses, make it easier for existing business is beyond me. You don't need oil to build a rich country. Just ask Switzerland and Japan for example.










XI. The main three reasons I hear excusing Norwegian roads; is that Norwegian topography is tough and the number of workers needed to build what is needed is too small and that Norwegians don't want to destroy their country by building freeways with too many cars polluting the atmosphere.

I agree with all of those... but... the technology to overcome the topography is there, I see it already being accomplished across Norway. Second, all you need to finish off a good road network in the next 10-20 years, is get about 10,00 Polish workers to come over, pay them a nice Norwegian salary and bam, work shortage solved. Finally, as cars become cleaner the environmental argument gets weaker.

XII. Finally, I know that they are taking about expanding Oslo airport. Norway has one of the largest markets for domestic air travel. Do the experts understand that if you had decent roads connecting all the major urban areas of Norway, air travel would go down and therefore pollution, since driving produces less pollution than air travel? I never hear anybody talk about this. Authorities seem so eager to expand airport but not roads. I find this strange.

http://environment.about.com/od/greenlivingdesign/a/fly_vs_drive.htm

I haven't even touched on the speed limits, road safety, tolls and driver training.


----------



## Norsko

^^ 
Probably about 5 millions Norwegians agree with you (except the above-mentioned islanders  ) :cheers: You should mail your thoughts to the gouvernment... :speech:


----------



## g.spinoza

Think about the fact that Norway is a huge country with very few people... taxes could not be enough to build large projects.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

lol Norway has hundreds of billions stocked away. Money really is not an issue in Norway. Investing it is, though.


----------



## ElviS77

JeremyCastle said:


> Been in Norway now since July. Here are some impressions and thoughts.
> 
> I.  First, the worst quality roads I've seen in a developed country. I'm sorry to say that.
> 
> IV. Roundabout sizes for two lanes entering it are too small. In the UK, they would have larger roundabouts for more than one lane entering it.
> 
> V. Norwegians seem to lose all traffic sense when using a roundabout. Most fail to signal right when leaving a roundabout. Until recently, no one was taught to signal left when going left at a roundabout, but new drivers are being taught to signal left now thankfully.
> 
> Why hasn't Norway been taken to task by the UNECE or anybody else, for failing to live up to the proper European road standards?
> 
> http://www.unece.org/leginstr/trans.html
> 
> I haven't even touched on the speed limits, road safety, tolls and driver training.


A few comments this evening... First of all, I agree with quite a bit of what you say, and there are many unresolved issues that must be dealt with. Our roads are generally not good enough, but there are reasons that has very little to do with the current political situation, but I won't comment on these here, rather focus on some of your points:

IV: I totally agree. We build roundabouts everywhere, and often they're a sensible solution. But they're way too small, and that goes for those that don't link multi-lane roads as well.

V: I've never seen the point of indicating left when going left *if your lane discipline is as it should be*. That is a massive problem, though, Norwegians aren't particularly good at this, and don't get me started on the lack of right-indicating when cars leave the roundabout...

The E road convention doesn't require roads to be of a certain quality, many E roads also outside Norway aren't up to recommended standards. I would, however, like to see such requirements, that might just kickstart some construction. We're fond of those green road numbers...

When it comes to driver training, it's actually very good and one of the reasons why our roads are among the* safest *in the world - in spite of mediocre roads. We're also pretty good when it comes to handling varying road quality and conditions, and we're not excessive speeders, tailgaters or drunk drivers. There is, of course, still room for improvement. Toll roads are an important issue, and I seriously object to tolls introduced ahead of completion of road projects. Speed limits are generally sensible, one shouldn't post ridiculously high limits on bad roads... Divided highways and motorways are a different story, though, but I truly believe that 110, possibly 120, limits will be introduced on motorways in a few years.


----------



## Grauthue

ChrisZwolle said:


> lol Norway has hundreds of billions stocked away. Money really is not an issue in Norway. Investing it is, though.


Not sure if I understood what you ment, but one of Norways problems when it comes to roads is that the economy has been running full speed for quite a few years now. Meaning that the unemployment rate is low and a massive spending on infrastructure will be sure to have a rather bad effect on inflation (and private companies would suffer). Ironically it would be easier to spend money on roads with a slightly worse economic situation (higher unemployment rate) since that type of public spending would be a good way to stimulate the economy. But in Norways case it's difficult to spend a lot on infrastructure without cutting somewhere else the way things are now. Personally I think more should be spent, but that means though cuts in some other budget.

But maybe this was what you ment to say.

If the european financial situation gets worse I'm pretty sure the spending on infrastructure would increase (which was what happened with the financial crisis in 2009, although at a small scale).


----------



## devo

JeremyCastle, you could cut off my left leg with an umbrella, yet I’d still agree with your points in that list. They are spot on. See my rant somewhere above for some details. 

Norwegian politicians have been completely clueless about infrastructure since they abandoned the large-scale road plans in the 70s. We also have a system where infrastructure is considered a one-time expense, like buying ice cream. Never did they think that better infrastructure will make the economy grow? Like the insane idea about infrastructure beeing, well I don’t know, an _investment_ in our economy, that will _pay off_ some day? 

Well.


----------



## Grauthue

devo said:


> We also have a system where infrastructure is considered a one-time expense, like buying ice cream. Never did they think that better infrastructure will make the economy grow? Like the insane idea about infrastructure beeing, well I don’t know, an _investment_ in our economy, that will _pay off_ some day?


Road projects are subject to a cost/benifit analysis, meaning that the future economical benifit *is* considered. But the model has been criticized by some claiming it is underestimating the benifit.


----------



## JeremyCastle

devo said:


> 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.



Your comments are extremely funny and extremely sad simultaneously! One could make a fine mocumentary style sitcom. A farce indeed!  :-(


----------



## Ingenioren

Just to further illustrate Jeremys excellent points, here is E6 Nes bridge in Nord-Trøndelag - aadt 2200 - 25% trucks:









http://www.vareveger.no/article294717.ece

This bridge will be replaced by a modern one now in a larger road project where E6 will be rerouted withinn Harran village and designed as a street with 40 and 50 km/h over more than one kilometer. 

In this case Grong municipality has chosen to keep E6 trough the village since it brings business to the gas-station, restaurant and grocery store.



ElviS77 said:


> V: I've never seen the point of indicating left when going left *if your lane discipline is as it should be*.


Common courtesy - someone will always cut the round-about when going straight and with only one exit lane you can't take a chance on a cars intention to turn left unless driver indicates.


----------



## ElviS77

Ingenioren said:


> Just to further illustrate Jeremys excellent points, here is E6 Nes bridge in Nord-Trøndelag - aadt 2200 - 25% trucks:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.vareveger.no/article294717.ece
> 
> This bridge will be replaced by a modern one now in a larger road project where E6 will be rerouted withinn Harran village and designed as a street with 40 and 50 km/h over more than one kilometer.
> 
> In this case Grong municipality has chosen to keep E6 trough the village since it brings business to the gas-station, restaurant and grocery store.
> 
> 
> Common courtesy - someone will always cut the round-about when going straight and with only one exit lane you can't take a chance on a cars intention to turn left unless driver indicates.


For your first point: That's truly annoying, and when they eventually decide to reroute the E6 around Harran (in, say, 25 years time), it will be at least as expensive as the original project. Completely useless idea. 

For the second: I agree, since lane discipline in roundabouts is as it is. That doesn't prevent me from believing that indicating left in a roundabout *should be* completely unnecessary.


----------



## devo

Grauthue said:


> Road projects are subject to a cost/benifit analysis, meaning that the future economical benifit *is* considered. But the model has been criticized by some claiming it is underestimating the benifit.


You are right. Still, the whole aura around infrastricture in Norway is strange. Take this as an example: http://www.tu.no/bygg/article294346.ece

The Minestry of Finance could not answer directly on why roads in Norway has to be loan financed within the über-safe corner of interests, at 6,5%. While not technically a direct loan to finance roads, the Germans still get away with 1,8% interests on a loan from the same pension fund that could not be used to finance roads in Norway. 

A question have to asked, are roads and infrastructure really the most unsafe investment we can make? With those interests it seems so. Even Greece will have their motorways at the end of the day. Meanwhile, take a walk down Regent Street, and look at some of the buildings where Norwegian oil money are stuffed away as property investment. Must be a 6,5% profit.


----------



## JeremyCastle

The reason why signalling left is helpful is this: I'm at a roundabout, and I want to to go straight. I slow down, and I see a car coming from the other side, and they look as if they are going to proceed straight. So, I start to go. As I begin to go, the other car ends up turning left rather than straight, and so, I hit the brakes to avoid actually continuing into the roundabout.

Now, if they had signalled, I would know what they were going to do, and as a result, I never would have attempted to enter the roundabout. As a result, I wouldn't have had to hit the breaks, and the chain reaction of seven cars behind more all hitting their breaks as well would never had occurred. To put it another way, if everyone in Norway signalled left when they saw a car coming from the other side in a roundabout not signalling, they could proceed into the roundabout because they know the other car is going straight.

Because 90% of Norwegians, don't bother to signal left, plus with the roundabouts that are simply to small, you end up with a nation of "brake tappers". That is, everyone inching their way into a roundabout, because everyone is unsure what the cars coming from the other side are going to do. I think this might be a major reason why roundabout traffic in the UK is so much smoother, people actually signal left(at least they are supposed to).


----------



## JeremyCastle

Does anyone know if the Bergen toll gates can read car number plates at night? I ask because Speed Cameras flash when taking a picture. Since there are no flashes on the cameras on the Bergen city toll gates, and if a car doesn't have the electronic box on the windshield, how are the toll gates able to read the number plates then once the sun goes down?


----------



## KiwiRob

^^From my experience going through similar toll plaza's you'll get away without a charge.

What are your thoughts on giving way to cars on your right, I find in winter that this is just plain dumb and dangerous, I've seen numerous accidents because of it and many people getting stuck because they can't get going again if they are going uphill.


----------



## IceCheese

JeremyCastle said:


> Does anyone know if the Bergen toll gates can read car number plates at night? I ask because Speed Cameras flash when taking a picture. Since there are no flashes on the cameras on the Bergen city toll gates, and if a car doesn't have the electronic box on the windshield, how are the toll gates able to read the number plates then once the sun goes down?


They photograph both the front and backplates. By law, you should have lights on your backplate.


----------



## JeremyCastle

IceCheese said:


> They photograph both the front and backplates. By law, you should have lights on your backplate.


I think you might have misunderstood my question. Yes, I know it photographs the front and back number plates, and yes, I know you should have lights on the backplats(I do). Let me ask it a slightly different way then.

Since speed cameras flash in order to read the plates of the car, how is it that the Bergen toll cameras are able to read the plates without a flash?


----------



## JeremyCastle

KiwiRob said:


> ^^From my experience going through similar toll plaza's you'll get away without a charge.
> 
> What are your thoughts on giving way to cars on your right, I find in winter that this is just plain dumb and dangerous, I've seen numerous accidents because of it and many people getting stuck because they can't get going again if they are going uphill.


The yielding to the right law is terrible. There is s junction close to our place that has unnecessary traffic jams because of this law. If the law simply allowed cars going straight to simple go straight, much unnecessary braking and taking stupid chances would be eliminated, similar to my comment about not signalling left in a roundabout.


----------



## KiwiRob

Yippee finally someone agrees with me on this forum, I don't know a non-Norwegian in Norway who likes it either, but try telling a local it's the most daft and possibly dangerous road rule ever.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

JeremyCastle said:


> I think you might have misunderstood my question. Yes, I know it photographs the front and back number plates, and yes, I know you should have lights on the backplats(I do). Let me ask it a slightly different way then.
> 
> Since speed cameras flash in order to read the plates of the car, how is it that the Bergen toll cameras are able to read the plates without a flash?


Speed cameras need a picture of the driver, whereas toll points only need a picture of the plates, which is much easier. Many speed cameras in tunnels are using infrared flash which you don't see, btw.

Needless to say, I agree fully with you regarding the Norwegian road standards, even if not all roads have that much traffic.

Regarding righ hand rule, I don't see the need to have signs everywhere, and hence this is a good rule, which also exist in most other countries I know / have driven in (quite a few, actually). However, there should clearly be a lot more roads having the right of way, i.e. with the diamond sign. The philosophy by the road authorities, I believe, is that people on the main road will drive more carefully if they don't have the right of way. From my experience, the local driving culture is varying dramatically around the country regarding main roads that do not formally have the right of way. In Trondheim, drivers more or less act as if they have the right of way when driving on the through / main road, which is good for traffic flow, but of course could be problematic the day an accident happens. In other parts of the country, they are driving more according to the book.

Regarding round-abouts, they are, according to the law, not different from any other road with the right of way. Hence, since you are both turning right when entering and exiting this "road", there is no rule that says that you should use the left turn signal as you enter if you plan to exit from the left arm of the roundabout. Personally, this is not something I expect, look for, or miss from other drivers either. However, what I do look for is the right-turn signal for cars that are about to exit the roundabout. This signal is required by law. Your assumptions (and hence surprises) are probably based on you coming from a country where signalling to the left in a round-about is common practice. Generally, a roundabouts in Norway are designed to slow down the traffic, and that is often the excuse for making them narrow. Still they are both safer and more efficient than traffic lights in most cases. 

http://www.vegvesen.no/Trafikkinformasjon/Lover+og+regler/Trafikkregler/Kjoring+i+rundkjoringer


----------



## katia72

KiwiRob said:


> Yippee finally someone agrees with me on this forum, I don't know a non-Norwegian in Norway who likes it either, but try telling a local it's the most daft and possibly dangerous road rule ever.



I agree with you too ..... Here in Oslo in many places (especially on the west) it is poorly signposted. What I miss in Norway is the "green light" to the right .... this could reduced queues in many places.


----------



## MattiG

54°26′S 3°24′E;86324297 said:


> Regarding round-abouts, they are, according to the law, not different from any other road with the right of way. Hence, since you are both turning right when entering and exiting this "road", there is no rule that says that you should use the left turn signal as you enter if you plan to exit from the left arm of the roundabout. Personally, this is not something I expect, look for, or miss from other drivers either. However, what I do look for is the right-turn signal for cars that are about to exit the roundabout. This signal is required by law.


It is interesting to see how the three Scandinavian countries Norway, Sweden and Finland have interpreted differently their traffic laws regarding to the signals in the roundabouts.

The content of the laws are very similar. None of them gives explicit hints on signaling. That is why the rules for 'ordinary' intersections are being applied to the roundabouts.

The different behaviour can be seen when making a left turn at a roundabout: The Finns do not give any signal before the exit where they give a right signal. The Norwegians seem to give a left signal when driving in the roundabout and finally a right signal. The Swedish way to drive at a roundabout is very liberal and usually they do not give any signal.


----------



## JeremyCastle

54°26′S 3°24′E;86324297 said:


> Speed cameras need a picture of the driver, whereas toll points only need a picture of the plates, which is much easier. Many speed cameras in tunnels are using infrared flash which you don't see, btw.


Forgive my ignorance, but as I've never gotten a speeding ticket from a speed camera, I assume that the cameras(at least in the UK) take a photo of the rear plates, not the driver. Wouldn't the camera have to move in order to get a photo of both the driver and number plate? Otherwise, how are people able to(again, at least in the Uk) convince their friends and relative to sometimes take the driving penalty points for them?

Again, I'm not sure how speed cameras work in Norway, but in the UK, I think speed cameras flash twice, once to take a normal photo of the number plate, another one in infra red to get a clear photo of the plate. If the infrared gets though any obstruction on the plate, then what is the purpose of the regular photo? Is it indeed to get a photo of the driver? If so, then that feeds into my first question, doesn't the camera have to move to get the photo of the driver?


----------



## MattiG

JeremyCastle said:


> Again, I'm not sure how speed cameras work in Norway, but in the UK, I think speed cameras flash twice, once to take a normal photo of the number plate, another one in infra red to get a clear photo of the plate. If the infrared gets though any obstruction on the plate, then what is the purpose of the regular photo? Is it indeed to get a photo of the driver? If so, then that feeds into my first question, doesn't the camera have to move to get the photo of the driver?


It depends on the local legislation. If the ticket is to be sent to the driver instead of the owner, then a frontal photo is needed, of course. It is not any problem to get a photo showing the driver and the plate by one shot.


----------



## ElviS77

JeremyCastle said:


> The reason why signalling left is helpful is this: I'm at a roundabout, and I want to to go straight. I slow down, and I see a car coming from the other side, and they look as if they are going to proceed straight. So, I start to go. As I begin to go, the other car ends up turning left rather than straight, and so, I hit the brakes to avoid actually continuing into the roundabout.
> 
> Now, if they had signalled, I would know what they were going to do, and as a result, I never would have attempted to enter the roundabout. As a result, I wouldn't have had to hit the breaks, and the chain reaction of seven cars behind more all hitting their breaks as well would never had occurred. To put it another way, if everyone in Norway signalled left when they saw a car coming from the other side in a roundabout not signalling, they could proceed into the roundabout because they know the other car is going straight.
> 
> Because 90% of Norwegians, don't bother to signal left, plus with the roundabouts that are simply to small, you end up with a nation of "brake tappers". That is, everyone inching their way into a roundabout, because everyone is unsure what the cars coming from the other side are going to do. I think this might be a major reason why roundabout traffic in the UK is so much smoother, people actually signal left(at least they are supposed to).


I don't disagree in practice, but I will continue to insist that if people could just drive properly, this wouldn't be an isssue. Driving properly before and in a roundabout, on the other hand, is an issue... Still, I believe the lack of right signalling when exiting is a far bigger issue that disrupts traffic flow considerably more. Norwegians are fairly good drivers, as long as they stay clear of motorways and roundabouts...


----------



## Galro

JeremyCastle said:


> The reason why signalling left is helpful is this: I'm at a roundabout, and I want to to go straight. I slow down, and I see a car coming from the other side, and they look as if they are going to proceed straight. So, I start to go. As I begin to go, the other car ends up turning left rather than straight, and so, I hit the brakes to avoid actually continuing into the roundabout.
> 
> Now, if they had signalled, I would know what they were going to do, and as a result, I never would have attempted to enter the roundabout. As a result, I wouldn't have had to hit the breaks, and the chain reaction of seven cars behind more all hitting their breaks as well would never had occurred. To put it another way, if everyone in Norway signalled left when they saw a car coming from the other side in a roundabout not signalling, they could proceed into the roundabout because they know the other car is going straight.
> .


Eh. You should be able to see that based on the placement on the road/which lane he is using if there are any. The left part of the road/lane is for going left, the right part of the road/lane is for going straight or right (and then you have to signal to the right).

You shouldn't signal to the left as you are going something fundamentally wrong if you plan to turn left into the roundabout. If you plan to continue driving to the left from the roundabout then you first have to turn *right* into the actual roundabout. Then just proceed on the the roundabout like it is a normal road until you reach the access road you want, where you have to take another *right* turn to leave the roundabout again. Could you identify at which point you are leaving the road with a left turn which warrant signaling to the left?


----------



## JeremyCastle

Galro said:


> Eh. You should be able to see that based on the placement on the road/which lane he is using if there are any. The left part of the road/lane is for going left, the right part of the road/lane is for going straight or right (and then you have to signal to the right).
> 
> Could you identify at which point you are leaving the road with a left turn which warrant signaling to the left?


Since most roundabouts in Norway are single lane, it's not that easy sometimes to know the road placement of the car.

If you are going left or going completely around the roundabout, you signal right as soon as you pass the exit before the one you want to take.


----------



## JeremyCastle

So, I woke up this morning and there was a fair amount of snow on the ground. And as I drove my wife to work, I notice that the roads we took, except for one small section all still had a fair amount of snow and ice on them. The snow plows had come, but was surprised out how much remained on the busy 9 in the morning roads. Also, it has been snowing for about 3 days now, and haven't noticed any salt or grit anywhere on the roads.

So I began to ask myself: "Do Norwegians not like to to salt and plow their roads either???"

I know we all use snow tires, but why is so much ice left on the roads?


----------



## Kjello0

Only the most important roads with the most traffic are salted. Salt has been criticized by many the recent years. When it's not icy, but just a layer of snow, salting the road makes the road condition worse. In addition it ruins the cars and the environment around the roads. Under half of the salt used stays in the road, and the rest ends up in the ditch. If they've just plow the road decently and regularly, most roads would be fine.


----------



## JeremyCastle

Kjello0 said:


> Only the most important roads with the most traffic are salted. Salt has been criticized by many the recent years. When it's not icy, but just a layer of snow, salting the road makes the road condition worse. In addition it ruins the cars and the environment around the roads. Under half of the salt used stays in the road, and the rest ends up in the ditch. If they've just plow the road decently and regularly, most roads would be fine.


But salt doesn't have to be used. Why don't they consider alternatives to salt? Where I'm originally from, California, sand and tiny special rocks are used. Have alternatives been considered?

I do agree with you though, that in the UK, where hardly anyone has winter tires, they use WAY TOO much salt, hence the problem with rust on cars. I don't think rust is as a big of a problem here. But then again, can't drivers(here in Norway and other places), just periodically wash the underside of their cars to get rid of the salt?


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Sand clogs the drainage systems.


----------



## ElviS77

JeremyCastle said:


> But salt doesn't have to be used. Why don't they consider alternatives to salt? Where I'm originally from, California, sand and tiny special rocks are used. Have alternatives been considered?
> 
> I do agree with you though, that in the UK, where hardly anyone has winter tires, they use WAY TOO much salt, hence the problem with rust on cars. I don't think rust is as a big of a problem here. But then again, can't drivers(here in Norway and other places), just periodically wash the underside of their cars to get rid of the salt?


They do consider - and use - alternatives, particularly in places where the temperature drops to a point where salt is at best ineffectual, at worst outright dangerous. But as KjellO said, motorways and expressways aside, we're probably better off plowing properly. "White" winter roads aren't a problem for drivers with winter experience and proper winter tyres, it might even be helpful: drivers tend to treat such conditions with more care than they do when the winter roads are "black".

Rust is a serious issue, as main roads (for instance the E6/E18 around Oslo) are salted heavily throughout the winter. And sure, we do wash the cars' undersides when possible. When it remains considerably below freezing for months, though, washing your car is not straightforward to begin with...


----------



## Galro

JeremyCastle said:


> Since most roundabouts in Norway are single lane, it's not that easy sometimes to know the road placement of the car.


Then I suggest you should do something to get more familiar with your own car. It should be no problem knowing the placement of your own car on the road. 


JeremyCastle said:


> If you are going left or going completely around the roundabout, you signal right as soon as you pass the exit before the one you want to take.


Yes, but you signal to the right as you will be leaving the roundabout to the right. Not to the left. That's only confusing and counter the otherwise easy to read layouts of roundabout.


----------



## Ingenioren

How can it be confusing... "That guy is signalling left... I wonder where he is going" (!!??)


----------



## Galro

Ingenioren said:


> How can it be confusing... "That guy is signalling left... I wonder where he is going" (!!??)


Because 
a: It's distracting. Blinking lights are. You shouldn't use it more than necessarily. People only expect other drivers to signal to the right on roundabout.

b: People who are already in the roundabout could think the guy who are signaling to left have misunderstood the concept with roundabouts, and is about to enter it to the left driving against the traffic flow. It's not too uncommon with people who do this at freeways, roundabouts or in one way streets. 

c: There way be more than one exists located to the left of where you are entering the roundabout, and it can therefore be hard to understand which one of them you mean. It's therefore a bad habit. If you instead are correctly signaling to the right when you are about to exist the roundabout then people will now that you will leave at first available exist.


----------



## Pannyers

When you're taking the blue line, you should sign to the left. Until exiting, than you sign right.
When you're taking the yellow line, you should sign to the right.

This is how we have to dot it in The Netherlands.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Not really. Some driving schools say you have to turn your left signal on if you're taking the roundabout three quarters but this is not set in the highway code.

It's also nonsense since you NEVER make a left turn on a roundabout except if you're driving it the wrong way.


----------



## cinxxx

It's not nonsense, since, if I come from another intersecting point, I can see if the car in the roundabout will continue inside (doing left) so I will wait for him to pass, or will exit (doing right) and then I can enter it.


----------



## GROBIN

ChrisZwolle said:


> It's also nonsense since you NEVER make a left turn on a roundabout except if you're driving it the wrong way.


What do you mean ???


----------



## ElviS77

ChrisZwolle said:


> It's also nonsense since you NEVER make a left turn on a roundabout except if you're driving it the wrong way.


My point exactly. The problem is the drivers, not the concept of non-left signalling in a roundabout, since you're actually always going right... Still, sometimes the interpretation of the traffic regulations need to be somewhat pragmatic, as the alternative doesn't help traffic flow.

I must admit that I rarely signal left. I always signal right when exiting the roundabout, though, and even tired in the morning rush hour, everyone adhering to the correct interpretation of driver lane discipline will avoid hitting yours truly...


----------



## ElviS77

GROBIN said:


> What do you mean ???


The roundabout is unidirectional. You go right when you enter it and you go right when you exit it. Unless you're in the UK or Ireland, of course...:lol:


----------



## GROBIN

*Ahhhh ! *Then you both mean a *direct* left-turn on the roundabout  Capisco ! :lol:


----------



## JeremyCastle

Galro said:


> Yes, but you signal to the right as you will be leaving the roundabout to the right. Not to the left. That's only confusing and counter the otherwise easy to read layouts of roundabout.


There might be a misunderstanding here. I never said you don't signal right. On the contrary, you should always signal right. Once you pass the exit before the one you want, you start too signal right.

I've already said my reasoning as to why I think that is a good idea, a few posts back. No need to rehash it out here.


----------



## JeremyCastle

Galro said:


> Then I suggest you should do something to get more familiar with your own car. It should be no problem knowing the placement of your own car on the road.


I appreciate the advice, but I think I am pretty secure in knowing my car.  I've driven cars for a living, driving about 100,000M (160,000km) all over California, Arizona, and England, not to mention driving for pleasure all over North America and Western Europe. I've observed the way people drive in several countries, and can see weaknesses and strengths in cultural driving habits. Norwegians are no exception. Don't worry though, Norwegians are near the top of the list for good drivers except for a couple areas, and roundabouts are one of them. 

You should get used to seeing more cars on the road signalling left at roundabouts, driving schools are now teaching that to their students. So, in a 3 or 4 decades, everyone should be doing it.  Not sure if it is Norwegian driving law yet(if so, they don't enforce it), but maybe soon.


----------



## JeremyCastle

Galro said:


> Because
> a: It's distracting. Blinking lights are. You shouldn't use it more than necessarily. People only expect other drivers to signal to the right on roundabout.
> 
> b: People who are already in the roundabout could think the guy who are signaling to left have misunderstood the concept with roundabouts, and is about to enter it to the left driving against the traffic flow. It's not too uncommon with people who do this at freeways, roundabouts or in one way streets.
> 
> c: There way be more than one exists located to the left of where you are entering the roundabout, and it can therefore be hard to understand which one of them you mean. It's therefore a bad habit. If you instead are correctly signaling to the right when you are about to exist the roundabout then people will now that you will leave at first available exist.


Are you saying that the countries that teach and practice the signalling left at roundabouts are all distracting each other?  I somehow doubt it.


----------



## JeremyCastle

cinxxx said:


> It's not nonsense, since, if I come from another intersecting point, I can see if the car in the roundabout will continue inside (doing left) so I will wait for him to pass, or will exit (doing right) and then I can enter it.


Exactly, my point exactly! That is what I was trying to explain(rather poorly most likely) some posts back. :cheers:


----------



## jeremiash

But seeing that he isn't blinking right, can't you assume he's going to continue round the roundabout...? I mean, where else is he going to go?


----------



## katia72

Victorinus said:


> When you're taking the blue line, you should sign to the left. Until exiting, than you sign right.
> When you're taking the yellow line, you should sign to the right.
> 
> This is how we have to dot it in The Netherlands.


This is exactly how we do in Poland too...


----------



## Ingenioren

JeremyCastle said:


> driving schools are now teaching that to their students.


My driving teacher tolled me i should always signal left if the round-about was less than 25 meters in diameter..  This was 7 years ago.


----------



## IceCheese

^^I never heard such from my teacher, and this was 5 (1/2) years ago. Never blinked left in my life either. IMO people not signaling in ordinary T-intersections is a much bigger problem for traffic flow.


----------



## cinxxx

jeremiash said:


> But seeing that he isn't blinking right, can't you assume he's going to continue round the roundabout...? I mean, where else is he going to go?


In Romania there are also many drivers who don't blink at all, even when changing lanes, and also in roundabouts not signaling right, but going right...


----------



## Ingenioren

New type of at-grade animal crossing opened on Rv7, sensors will set of flashing lights as animals approach the crossing:









http://www.vegvesen.no/Om+Statens+vegvesen/Media/Siste+nyheter/Vis?key=288441


----------



## ChrisZwolle

That's a coincidence. I was watching a video last night of the Overijssel province in the Netherlands who wants to install the exact same system here.


----------



## MattiG

Ingenioren said:


> New type of at-grade animal crossing opened on Rv7, sensors will set of flashing lights as animals approach the crossing:


Does that work?

There have been several attempts to make a similar concept working in Finland, all failing. It is a hard job to make the sensors reacting to the big animals and only to them. If the system gives too much false positives and false negatives, it is worth nothing.


----------



## Fargo Wolf

Ingenioren said:


> New type of at-grade animal crossing opened on Rv7, sensors will set of flashing lights as animals approach the crossing:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.vegvesen.no/Om+Statens+vegvesen/Media/Siste+nyheter/Vis?key=288441


Any more pics of that, or a dash cam vid? I can't imagine that being used on a main route, though much of Norway has a low (to me anyway) traffic volume.


----------



## metasmurf

Fargo Wolf said:


> Any more pics of that, or a dash cam vid? I can't imagine that being used on a main route, though much of Norway has a low (to me anyway) traffic volume.


My guess is that budget is too tight to build a proper grade separated wildlife crossing in relation to the traffic amount.


----------



## Ingenioren

*Fv659 Nordøyvegen*

Construction is expected to start next year on a road 1800 million kroner project including 3 bridge/filling crossings and 3 sub-sea tunnels to link the islands with 3200 inhabitants located north of Ålesund, total length including widening of existing road is 37km. 5 ferry-lines will be closed when the road opens in 2016. 



















http://www.nordøyvegen.no/
http://www.vegvesen.no/Vegprosjekter/fv659nordoyvegen


----------



## katia72

Wondering who will pay for this project ..?


----------



## IceCheese

^^Not the inhabitans of Steinsmark, but I suspect the Ålesund-area will pay with another 2000 cars on their local roads every day.

And I won't even remove the ferrys completely!!!:bash:


----------



## vidiipurpllediinatha

Good road mapping to covering all area with one way


----------



## Ingenioren

Strange signing in Robsrudkrysset where Rv159 meets Rv163 and E6:

Westbound exit, also used for Rv159 to E6 - no road number for Rv163 and destinations are Økern (ok - but not signed again untill after Stovner.) and Grorud.... 









Eastbound exit uses Høybråten as the only destination on Rv163, once you left the motorway, and again no road number:









At the ramps appear signs for road 163 and Stovner is consistently used as the destination from here - neither Høybråten, Grorud or Økern is signed for a while following the road, after passing Stovner - Økern and Sentrum is used. Never mind the white number in brackets, it's been replaced by a green for some time now:








Altering of Hamar and Trondheim as a destination on E6 is also quite stupid - but atleast there's a road number...


----------



## MattiG

Ingenioren said:


> Altering of Hamar and Trondheim as a destination on E6 is also quite stupid - but atleast there's a road number...


The Norwegian signage is a stochastic process.


----------



## IceCheese

Wouldn't it be logic if the blue signs had the most distant destination?:?


----------



## Ingenioren

Most important is to use the same destinations continously, usually there are important destination signed in important intersections and local destinations signed in less important, for example E18 is signed towards Stockholm in Oslo, but Askim or Ørje in Østfold. E6 signs should point towards Trondheim+Gardermoen, Rv163 signs should point towards Økern.


----------



## KiwiRob

IceCheese said:


> ^^Not the inhabitans of Steinsmark, but I suspect the Ålesund-area will pay with another 2000 cars on their local roads every day.
> 
> And I won't even remove the ferrys completely!!!:bash:


I've been told 3200 is the summer population, so this is really just a very expensive road for access to hyttas.


----------



## Ingenioren

You rather trust some rumour than the official documents? Those are registred residents with adresses on these islands in the state archives. It's calculated aadt for traffic to mainland at 700 when opening and 1000 after downpayment finished....


----------



## hiweigh

*IMHO on Dalsfjord bridge 523m, Norway*

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=84684212&postcount=1

The Norway Fjords are very precious historical landmarks.
So IMHO never should happen a ruining act like this.
'Course the highway network should be being expanded and ... expanded.
But in cases like this, IMHO the only solution which can be is a massive tunnel system.
Only to keep the historical landmarks untouched.


----------



## MattiG

hiweigh said:


> http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=84684212&postcount=1
> 
> The Norway Fjords are very precious historical landmarks.
> So IMHO never should happen a ruining act like this.
> 'Course the highway network should be being expanded and ... expanded.
> But in cases like this, IMHO the only solution which can be is a massive tunnel system.
> Only to keep the historical landmarks untouched.


What is particularly special in Dalsfjord compared to the hundreds of other fjords in Norway?


----------



## hiweigh

I honestly wrote "The Norway Fjords".
Dalsfjord came up for an instance.
hence I mean my states to be applied to all Norway Fjords.


----------



## MattiG

hiweigh said:


> I honestly wrote "The Norway Fjords".
> Dalsfjord came up for an instance.
> hence I mean my states to be applied to all Norway Fjords.


So, the clock shall be stopped on the whole west coast of Norway?


----------



## KiwiRob

Ingenioren said:


> You rather trust some rumour than the official documents? Those are registred residents with adresses on these islands in the state archives. It's calculated aadt for traffic to mainland at 700 when opening and 1000 after downpayment finished....


I know someone with a hytta at Brunvoll, he's amazed at this plan since most of the houses on Haroy are holiday homes.


----------



## Ingenioren

Video from the new Rv7 expressway under construction, Sokna - Ørgenvika:


----------



## katia72

KiwiRob said:


> I know someone with a hytta at Brunvoll, he's amazed at this plan since most of the houses on Haroy are holiday homes.



completely unnecessary use of people's money hno:


----------



## IceCheese

New sign that will be used on motorway exits from January 1st:










It's design is inspired by "the Austrian hand". They hope this sign will make it easier for old and/or stressed out drivers to not make the mistake of driving on the wrong ramp. (the road authorities refere to them as the "KMK"s, -kjøring mot kjøreretning (driving against driving direction), and has counted 15 KMK's leading to accidents, killing 5, seriously injuring 7 and hurting 19 people in the period of 2002-2009)


There are some other changes in the roadsign-system as well. One of them is this new sign, meaning "traffic accident":









I'm sorry, but the tipped over car really gets me!:lol:


----------



## MattiG

IceCheese said:


> New sign that will be used on motorway exits from January 1st:


No snuffing on Norwegian motorways?


----------



## Fargo Wolf

IceCheese said:


> It's design is inspired by "the Austrian hand". They hope this sign will make it easier for old and/or stressed out drivers to not make the mistake of driving on the wrong ramp. (the road authorities refere to them as the "KMK"s, -kjøring mot kjøreretning (driving against driving direction), and has counted 15 KMK's leading to accidents, killing 5, seriously injuring 7 and hurting 19 people in the period of 2002-2009)
> 
> 
> There are some other changes in the roadsign-system as well. One of them is this new sign, meaning "traffic accident":
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, but the tipped over car really gets me!:lol:


We simply use the familiar "Do Not Enter" sign and a little further down, a red sign with the words 'WRONG WAY"

Google Streetview:
http://maps.google.ca/?ll=50.654219...d=IunPekzw62c9CQgSg2ZdJQ&cbp=12,62.65,,2,1.34

And the wrong way sign:
http://maps.google.ca/?ll=50.654341...=XOJtxjPIEflOWDVFnUdSkg&cbp=12,112.15,,2,2.25

What? A sign that says: ACCIDENT SCENE in Norwegian not good enough? :lol: Even the car silhouette looks embarrassed. :rofl:


----------



## IceCheese

^^Yep, that's what we use today: http://maps.google.ca/?ll=59.662633...NZqbtSlcRPHvHsKCFg&cbp=12,202.12,,0,5.11&z=15
I guess this sign will replace that one..

About textual signs, I guess you know these are far more common in North America than Europe, as you are much more likely to have drivers not knowing the local language here. For warning signs, text only is pretty much out of the question. Norwegian motorways are usually flooded with Poles, Rumanians, Bulgarians, Portoguese etc. with limitid knowledge in local traffic rules. An alternative could be English signs, but I really don't see that happening either.


----------



## metasmurf

Will there be any new motorway or motortrafikkvei stretches opening next year?


----------



## Kjello0

The only major project opening in 2012 is as far as I know E 18 Sky (Larvik) - Langangen (Porsgrunn) (11 km motorway) next fall.

Otherwise I don't know of any projects.


----------



## Ingenioren

Exactly, most projects aren't motorway or motortrafficway - i may add these motortrafficways for 2012 (not sure if the shorter projects will be signed as such):

E6 Øyer - Tretten 13,5km 2+1 motortrafficway
Rv510 Solasplitten 4km 1+1 motortrafficway
Rv47 Norheim - Raglamyr 1,5km 1+1 motortrafficway


----------



## Kjello0

E 6 Gråmyra in Nord-Trøndelag replace a 1,3 km gap between two existing motortrafficways, but does sadly have a roundabout in the middle.

E 6 Sparbu - Vist (1,5 km extension of existing motortrafficway) in Nord-Trøndelag was supposed to be started back in March and open this fall. But hasn't even started yet. The project page now says start in 2012. Hopefully an opening as well?


----------



## JeremyCastle

Anyone know how much time the Hardanger Bridge that will open in 2013, will shorten the drive(if any) between Oslo and Bergen?


----------



## MattiG

JeremyCastle said:


> Anyone know how much time the Hardanger Bridge that will open in 2013, will shorten the drive(if any) between Oslo and Bergen?


The bridge is located a few kilometres to the west of the ferry, and the change in the driving distance is negligible.










The time saving comes from the ferry crossing time (10 minutes) plus the waiting time (departure every 40-60 minutes).


----------



## JeremyCastle

And the toll? Has there been any word on how much the toll is going to cost?


----------



## JeremyCastle

What about the road network before and after the bridge? At least the E-16 is a "proper road" with yellow lines down the middle. The rv7 and the 40 look like the roads to use in conjunction with the bridge but if they are those silly little roads that make it hard for a big truck and a car to pass each other, then it might makes sense to still take the E-16, especially if the toll on the bridge will be abnormally high.


----------



## MattiG

JeremyCastle said:


> What about the road network before and after the bridge? At least the E-16 is a "proper road" with yellow lines down the middle. The rv7 and the 40 look like the roads to use in conjunction with the bridge but if they are those silly little roads that make it hard for a big truck and a car to pass each other, then it might makes sense to still take the E-16, especially if the toll on the bridge will be abnormally high.


I do not know if the toll is agreed yet. The initial estimate in 2004 was NOK 110 for a passenger car. I would expect a price tag of NOK 130-150 at the date of opening. The estimated toll collection period is 15 years. (The toll is already there: The ferry ticket contains a surcharge of NOK 22 as an advance payment.)

There are no big differences between the four primary route options (E16 over Fagernes, E16/52/7 over Gol, E16/13/7 over Hardanger bridge and Gol, E16/13/7/40 over Hardanger bridge and Kongsberg). Currenly, the most popular one is E16/52/7.

The current daily traffic of 900 vehicles over Hardangervidda (the mountain area between the bridge and the village of Geilo) is expected to grow to 1300 vehicles. The "losers" are E16 and E134 (over Haukeli).


----------



## Ingenioren

Fv40 has yellow markings all the way, but it have sharp turns most of it's length and runs at a high altitude, so Rv7 is more popular for Oslo - Geilo.

Not sure about the final number for tolls on Hardanger bridge, but last number i read was 112 kroner for cars.


----------



## italystf

IceCheese said:


> New sign that will be used on motorway exits from January 1st:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's design is inspired by "the Austrian hand". They hope this sign will make it easier for old and/or stressed out drivers to not make the mistake of driving on the wrong ramp. (the road authorities refere to them as the "KMK"s, -kjøring mot kjøreretning (driving against driving direction), and has counted 15 KMK's leading to accidents, killing 5, seriously injuring 7 and hurting 19 people in the period of 2002-2009)
> 
> 
> There are some other changes in the roadsign-system as well. One of them is this new sign, meaning "traffic accident":
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, but the tipped over car really gets me!:lol:


Similar signs in Italy:









and Austria


----------



## zsimi80

^^ Hungary:


----------



## MKA123

Start of construction of E18 Momarken-Homstvedt in Østfold: http://www.vegvesen.no/Vegprosjekter/e18ostfold/Nyhetsarkiv/294986.cms

This stretch is half of the E18 Momarken-Melleby-project, and the project will mainly be built as motorway: http://www.vegvesen.no/Vegprosjekter/e18ostfold/Delprosjekter/Melleby-Momarken


----------



## Ingenioren

It's a 2+2 and 1+1 expressway - 90km/h.


----------



## MKA123

Ingenioren said:


> It's a 2+2 and 1+1 expressway - 90km/h.


Yes, you're right. I didn't see it before.


----------



## Ingenioren

Some updates of E18 motorway between Larvik and Porsgrunn:














































http://redir.opoint.com/?key=V9bLgEdJE1WlBjuY6XT4


----------



## devo

This looks very nice, I'm looking forward to the opening on May 15th. Or, they said it was on schedule, but not what date, som I'm assuming it's that date


----------



## ElviS77

It's been snowing a wee bit in Oslo... It shouldn't really be that much of an issue - but it inevitably is, even without foreign lorries without proper winter equipment. 

http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/iriks/Utenlandske-vogntog-stopper-trafikken--6737844.html

In Norwegian, but the main idea is that traffic flow on the E6 southbound was severly hampered by a few lorries. I don't mind foreign truckers at all, but it's really important to be prepared when driving in wintertime in Norway. Not all are, unfortunately. I spent almost two hours driving a distance that even in severe rush hour congestion would take 30-40 mins.


----------



## Grauthue

ElviS77 said:


> It's been snowing a wee bit in Oslo... It shouldn't really be that much of an issue - but it inevitably is, even without foreign lorries without proper winter equipment.
> 
> http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/iriks/Utenlandske-vogntog-stopper-trafikken--6737844.html
> 
> In Norwegian, but the main idea is that traffic flow on the E6 southbound was severly hampered by a few lorries. I don't mind foreign truckers at all, but it's really important to be prepared when driving in wintertime in Norway. Not all are, unfortunately. I spent almost two hours driving a distance that even in severe rush hour congestion would take 30-40 mins.


^^ No shit. I'm just back from work. Spent 2 hours on a trip which takes 13 minutes in the summer with no queues. Took me about half an hour just to get through Sinsenkrysset. :bash:


----------



## Dan

any list of the 2012 motorway projects that will be happening this year?


----------



## ElviS77

Dan said:


> any list of the 2012 motorway projects that will be happening this year?


I think only the abovementioned E18 section will open in 2012, but I may be mistaken.


----------



## Schweden

ElviS77 said:


> I think only the abovementioned E18 section will open in 2012, but I may be mistaken.


Quite sad that there isn't much improvement in Norway's infrastructure. I just don't get it, high taxes, enormous capital (oil) and on top of that, tolls. Should be all that's needed for good roads - even with "difficult terrain". The few motorways in Norway are of good quality though - but you can only drive at 100 km/h.

Is the political opposition in Norway demanding better infrastructure? A change is needed.


----------



## Grauthue

Schweden said:


> Quite sad that there isn't much improvement in Norway's infrastructure. I just don't get it, high taxes, enormous capital (oil) and on top of that, tolls. Should be all that's needed for good roads - even with "difficult terrain". The few motorways in Norway are of good quality though - but you can only drive at 100 km/h.
> 
> Is the political opposition in Norway demanding better infrastructure? A change is needed.


Well, truth of the matter is that people like to complain (that includes me). We like to bitch about how bad the norwegian roads are (which is true). But it is also true that the pace after year 2000 has been better when it comes to road construction. Not a revolution, but for 2012 Norway is planning to spend about twice as much money per capita for road investments as Sweden according to road tzar Terje Moe Gustavsen. 

(Sweden probably gets a good bit more for the money they spend though).


----------



## Schweden

Grauthue said:


> Well, truth of the matter is that people like to complain (that includes me). We like to bitch about how bad the norwegian roads are (which is true). But it is also true that the pace after year 2000 has been better when it comes to road construction. Not a revolution, but for 2012 Norway is planning to spend about twice as much money per capita for road investments as Sweden according to road tzar Terje Moe Gustavsen.
> 
> (Sweden probably gets a good bit more for the money they spend though).


Great read! Although this kinda proves my point:


> Bompenger betaler omtrent halvparten av ny veibygging i Norge.


What Norweigan politicians fails to realise is the connection between good infrastructure and economic growth. If you invest money from your oil funds in building proper infrastructure, these projects will generate money in the end.


----------



## IceCheese

Local newspaper Østlandets blad seems pretty convinced that a new tunnel beside the old one, is the only real option to get heavy traffic back in the Oslofjord tunnel (Rv23). According to various sources, they seem to think construction may start already in a couple of years, with an estimated construction period of ~5 years.

Link to article: http://www.oblad.no/badebyen/vil-bygge-nytt-lop-i-oslofjordtunnelen-1.6707423


----------



## devo

Just saw that. Seems crazy that this might be "just" five years away. Should've been built like that in the first place though. Also, it should be motorway all the way to Drammen.


----------



## Ingenioren

IceCheese said:


> estimated construction period of ~5 years.


Construction period 2014-2017 - just to be clear...


----------



## KiwiRob

Schweden said:


> Quite sad that there isn't much improvement in Norway's infrastructure. I just don't get it, high taxes, enormous capital (oil) and on top of that, tolls. Should be all that's needed for good roads - even with "difficult terrain". The few motorways in Norway are of good quality though - but you can only drive at 100 km/h.
> 
> Is the political opposition in Norway demanding better infrastructure? A change is needed.


No the situation is the average Norwegian just accepts that this is the state of affairs and believe that things will never change, they also never complain about it.


----------



## KiwiRob

Grauthue said:


> Well, truth of the matter is that people like to complain (that includes me). We like to bitch about how bad the norwegian roads are (which is true). But it is also true that the pace after year 2000 has been better when it comes to road construction. Not a revolution, but for 2012 Norway is planning to spend about twice as much money per capita for road investments as Sweden according to road tzar Terje Moe Gustavsen.
> 
> (Sweden probably gets a good bit more for the money they spend though).


Really I've been living here for 6 years now, Norwegians may complain at home but they don't make enough noise for the govt to listen.


----------



## IceCheese

A route has been chosen for E18 Vinterbro - Akershus border, which is the second last part of E18 Vinterbro - Swedish border. The road will be built at full motorway standard, following alternative 3A4. This video illustrate the alternative:






The route includes two short tunnels, and new exits to Ås and Kråkstad.

When they will actually start building, is a more uncertain point, but they may start already 2014, if someone come over some money.


----------



## JeremyCastle

So, I went over to a car mechanic shop today to get a quote on an oil change, and they quoted me NOK 1000! That's £109 or $168.00. Freaking unbelievable! :bash::bash: That is almost 4 and half times the price I would pay my local mechanic to do it in the UK, and 6-8 times more than what I would pay back in California! :nuts::nuts:

I managed a polite "thank you" to the gentleman wielding the calculator and whispered to one of the customers, who was helping me with some translation "I think I might just do it myself." She smiled.

I thought they would charge somewhere in the neighborhood of 300-500 for an oil change, but 1000??? Really??? REALLY????? Is that a normal price, or is this a Norwegian reality I simply must get used too?

Maybe I should do it myself. I'm pretty sure I can buy an oil filter, oil, oil filter remover, and an oil catcher can for much less than that. All I need to do is find a place who will take the used oil. :-/


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Doesn't sound too weird to me. Motor oil in the Netherlands can easily cost more than € 10 per liter, so if your car requires 5 or 6 liters, that's € 60 - 70 + filters + old oil removal tax + salary, so just over € 100 is not that weird considering a Norwegian mechanic probably has the highest salary in the world.


----------



## SeanT

The same in Denmark. I always do it myself. I buy oil (4 l) around 400 ( midprice) filter 100 (original) dkk. It takes 30 min. , no stress! Than I can take the used oil and deliver it a nearby station for renovation (2 km) for free! If the price was like dkk 600, -, I wouldn't bother!


----------



## ElviS77

ChrisZwolle said:


> Doesn't sound too weird to me. Motor oil in the Netherlands can easily cost more than € 10 per liter, so if your car requires 5 or 6 liters, that's € 60 - 70 + filters + old oil removal tax + salary, so just over € 100 is not that weird considering a Norwegian mechanic probably has the highest salary in the world.


True. Decent motor oil isn't cheap, mechanics aren't either up here.


----------



## JeremyCastle

Well, I guess it's off to Biltema/Bilxtra/mekonomen then... Sigh.

Actually, I just remembered that I brought an oil filter with me from the UK for such a time as this. Next time I go to the UK, might just have to bring back a few more with me. :lol:

I wonder how much tax revenue the Norwegian government loses for having prices/taxes too high so people end up bringing stuff up from other countries? But that is a topic for another thread on another board.


----------



## ElviS77

JeremyCastle said:


> I wonder how much tax revenue the Norwegian government loses for having prices/taxes too high so people end up bringing stuff up from other countries? But that is a topic for another thread on another board.


Well, there's a wee bit lost, but when push comes to show, not all that much to worry about. Norway is a pretty big country, and the cost and bother of transporting yourself to and from a foreign country - even Sweden - makes most people reluctant to do such things on a regular basis. Unless you live reasonably close to the Swedish border and there's a decent-sized population centre on just that opposite side of the border, of course.


----------



## KiwiRob

JeremyCastle said:


> I wonder how much tax revenue the Norwegian government loses for having prices/taxes too high so people end up bringing stuff up from other countries? But that is a topic for another thread on another board.


I heard recently that Norwegians are spending 1 billion NOK per week in Sweden.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Töcksfors, Sweden. It has a shopping center that has more parking spaces than the town has inhabitants. Oh, it's right across the border from Norway.

http://www.thonshopping.se/tocksfors


----------



## ElviS77

ChrisZwolle said:


> Töcksfors, Sweden. It has a shopping center that has more parking spaces than the town has inhabitants. Oh, it's right across the border from Norway.
> 
> http://www.thonshopping.se/tocksfors


And that is of course one of the areas where the border trade is of some importance. Svinesund is even more important.


----------



## MattiG

ChrisZwolle said:


> Töcksfors, Sweden. It has a shopping center that has more parking spaces than the town has inhabitants. Oh, it's right across the border from Norway.
> 
> http://www.thonshopping.se/tocksfors


Similar places exist close to the border on E6 and 61(S)/2(N).

In fact, that sort of commerce is rather common at the borders of Norway, Sweden and Finland. Sometimes, the shops are temporary ones, and they may move across to border if the prices change because of changes in taxes or for some other reason.

For example, there is a huge shop in Kilpisjärvi, Finland, which is a tiny village of 100+ people. The shop sells especially meat to Norwegians. Then, the sales of alcohol per capita in the municipality of Utsjoki is about five times as much as the average elsewere in Finland. The reason for those figures is the alcohol shop in the border village of Nuorgam serving half of the northernmost Norway.

The balance is always moving in the twin city of Tornio and Haaparanta at the Finnish-Swedish border. Currently, the Swedes travel to Tornio to buy fuel (cheaper) and alcohol (better sortiment), and the Finns travel to Haparanda because of furniture (Ikea) and food (cheaper).


----------



## JeremyCastle

So, a couple of months ago, as I was driving away from our apartment building, some road authorities people stopped us(vegvesen, the ministry that handles the roads in Norway) and asked us if our parking lot is usually full of cars. We told the guy no, it isn't(we have a public parking lot that has spaces for around 15 cars but only about 4-6 cars use it). Now, every 2 weeks or so, they have their grayish/orange van on our parking lot and they are stopping people who are going too "fast"(that's laughable), or are seen with a non working light, directing their vehicle to our parking lot where they are ticketed and/or talked to.

First, I hope they didn't take what I said as permission to start using the parking lot as their roving base of operations. I am not the owner of the property. In Norway, do the road authorities people have the right to use private property without getting permission from the property owners to do what they are doing? I think that in Most(if not all) US States, that they are not allowed to use private property.

Second, how come I see these guys(I have yet to see a woman)way more than the police? They seem to have powers that are similar to the police, which irks me for some reason. If these guys want to be police, let them be police, but somehow it annoys me that these guys get to act like demi-police(yes, I know I'm silly).

Norwegians, your comments?


----------



## ElviS77

JeremyCastle said:


> So, a couple of months ago, as I was driving away from our apartment building, some road authorities people stopped us(vegvesen, the ministry that handles the roads in Norway) and asked us if our parking lot is usually full of cars. We told the guy no, it isn't(we have a public parking lot that has spaces for around 15 cars but only about 4-6 cars use it). Now, every 2 weeks or so, they have their grayish/orange van on our parking lot and they are stopping people who are going too "fast"(that's laughable), or are seen with a non working light, directing their vehicle to our parking lot where they are ticketed and/or talked to.
> 
> First, I hope they didn't take what I said as permission to start using the parking lot as their roving base of operations. I am not the owner of the property. In Norway, do the road authorities people have the right to use private property without getting permission from the property owners to do what they are doing? I think that in Most(if not all) US States, that they are not allowed to use private property.
> 
> Second, how come I see these guys(I have yet to see a woman)way more than the police? They seem to have powers that are similar to the police, which irks me for some reason. If these guys want to be police, let them be police, but somehow it annoys me that these guys get to act like demi-police(yes, I know I'm silly).
> 
> Norwegians, your comments?


The simple answer is no, they don't have police power and cannot fine anyone for anything, most certainly not for speeding. They may check the state of cars, mechanically speaking, and they are empowered to remove plates from cars deemed unsafe (unless I'm gravely mistaken).

When it comes to the use of private property, I'm less sure about the rules. I would imagine, though, that the police are allowed to do random checks from privately owned roads etc, but I'm far from certain.


----------



## devo

The road law (?) applies to any vehicle, on any road, private or public. For instance, you can not drive a car across uncultivated land/«utmark», basically where there are no roads. Secondly, you can not break any speed limits or drive without your belt on private (even your own) roads. So yes, they can check you from, and on, private roads, but these are highly theoretical edge cases.

Land ownership is not very strong in Norway, so I'll guess that doing these checks from a parking lot is OK, as long as they don't break the regulations for the parking lot in question. Like not paying for parking, or taking up space for those who are supposed to park there.

That's probably why they asked.


----------



## ChrisBerg91

ElviS77 said:


> The simple answer is no, they don't have police power and cannot fine anyone for anything, most certainly not for speeding. They may check the state of cars, mechanically speaking, and they are empowered to remove plates from cars deemed unsafe (unless I'm gravely mistaken).
> 
> When it comes to the use of private property, I'm less sure about the rules. I would imagine, though, that the police are allowed to do random checks from privately owned roads etc, but I'm far from certain.


That's where you are wrong. The Statens Vegvesen (The Norwegian Public Roads Administration) are alowed to fine anyone that breaks the speed limit, or any other rules on the road, but they need a confirmation from the police in any operation they have. They may also cooperate with the police, or there may be a sivil uniformed police with them when they operate.


----------



## Ingenioren

Video from the E18 Larvik - Porsgrunn opening in june:

http://www.op.no/bil/article5987974.ece


----------



## IceCheese

^^I thought I we were going off the bridge at 1:57!:lol:


----------



## Fargo Wolf

Am I correct in guessing that Lithuanian truckers are no longer welcome in Norway are no longer welcome after that spectacular wreck where both the truck and the wrecker went over the bank.


----------



## MattiG

Fargo Wolf said:


> Am I correct in guessing that Lithuanian truckers are no longer welcome in Norway are no longer welcome after that spectacular wreck where both the truck and the wrecker went over the bank.


That issue does not apply to Lithuanians only but trucks coming from all the eastern European countries. About every sixth of those is said to be in a miserable condition.

The trucks usually have summer tyres only, no chains, and the drivers are not skillful enough to drive at the winter conditions.

That Lithuanian hero had put chains on one tyre only.


----------



## devo

There will never be a ban on trucks from a specific country, but they are hitting hard on trucks coming from ferries, especially here in Kristiansand, where I live. There are obviously more bad stuff from some countries, but everyone is checked. One time a smart guy tried to drive away from the control post, but got stuck on the hill leading up to E 39 from the ferry terminal. He wasn't going anywhere.

Also, remember that this Lithuanian man is still recovering in hospital. The winter conditions we have in Norway are really not good for heavy trucks, especially on the roads we have some places. And it does not help that some drivers choose long detours on small roads just to avoid tolls.

I say, given the circumstances, that the employers have the responsibility for this mess that happens every year. However, there would have been less mess if the government made sure that the roads were as good as they could be.


----------



## italystf

devo said:


> There will never be a ban on trucks from a specific country, but they are hitting hard on trucks coming from ferries, especially here in Kristiansand, where I live. There are obviously more bad stuff from some countries, but everyone is checked. One time a smart guy tried to drive away from the control post, but got stuck on the hill leading up to E 39 from the ferry terminal. He wasn't going anywhere.
> 
> Also, remember that this Lithuanian man is still recovering in hospital. The winter conditions we have in Norway are really not good for heavy trucks, especially on the roads we have some places. And it does not help that some drivers choose long detours on small roads just to avoid tolls.
> 
> I say, given the circumstances, that the employers have the responsibility for this mess that happens every year. However, there would have been less mess if the government made sure that the roads were as good as they could be.


Since they can't ban trucks regarding their nationality, they can ban trucks that don't meet certain safety standards (like chains or winter tyres in winter) and close small roads to heavy vehicles.


----------



## ElviS77

italystf said:


> Since they can't ban trucks regarding their nationality, they can ban trucks that don't meet certain safety standards (like chains or winter tyres in winter) and close small roads to heavy vehicles.


It's quite bizarre that winter tyres aren't mandatory in the winter months up here. The law does state, however, that your vehicle needs to be able to deal with the conditions on the road. The issue with many smaller roads is that they're often the only link for smaller communities to the outside world, and a ban on lorries would seriously complicate things for trade and industry in these areas (lumber trucks is one such example, there are many others). A ban on transit traffic might work better, but even that may cause considerable problems in some areas.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

You can ban and mandate this and that, but it all comes down to enforcement, which is quite hard in such a sparsely populated country. I'm sure the police has better things to do than check every back road for foreign trucks not having the right equipment.


----------



## nealc

It would be easy to enforce in Norway, there are only so many ways of getting into the country, most would probably come via ferry, it's easy to police the ferry ports or they cross the border from Sweden, traffic from Sweden would also come via a limited number of routes which could also be easily policed. I'm sure the Swedes also have issues with foreign trucks with incorrect tyres.


----------



## NordikNerd

MattiG said:


> That issue does not apply to Lithuanians only but trucks coming from all the eastern European countries. About every sixth of those is said to be in a miserable condition.
> 
> The trucks usually have summer tyres only, no chains, and the drivers are not skillful enough to drive at the winter conditions.
> 
> That Lithuanian hero had put chains on one tyre only.


Do the customs at the finnish/russian border have auto inspection where they test the brakes on russian trucks before they are allowed to enter ?


----------



## MattiG

NordikNerd said:


> Do the customs at the finnish/russian border have auto inspection where they test the brakes on russian trucks before they are allowed to enter ?


The Finnish-Russian border is the external border to the EU and to the Schengen area. That is why the controls are strict, including assessing the technical condition of the vehicles. The Russian transport companies know the policy, and they do not try to enter Finland with bad vehicles. Thus, the Russians are nowadays not a problem.

Much of the goods traffic takes place across the sea as an intra-Schengen traffic. There is no possibility to inspect every vehicle at the ports. This opens the gates to the questionable trucks coming from the east European countries being members of the EU. I think the situation is similar in the Swedish and Norwegian ports, too.


----------



## MattiG

italystf said:


> Since they can't ban trucks regarding their nationality, they can ban trucks that don't meet certain safety standards (like chains or winter tyres in winter) and close small roads to heavy vehicles.


That particular incident happened at the road 78, if I understood correctly, thus being a part of the main road network. Many main roads in Norway are challenging even in the summer conditions but you cannot block those, of course.


----------



## treichard

Recently, Norway and Sweden agreed to reroute E16 so that it would turn east toward Sweden instead of reaching Oslo as it has for years. Has Norway signed the new E16 so that motorists can follow it by signs, or are there still issues to resolve before the relocation occurs?


----------



## devo

The signing is supposed to be finished this year, but there are no issues less than actually putting the signs up, as far as I understand. What I do not understand though, is why they will leave the part from Hønefoss to Sandvika as E 16. It is by any standards far to long to be called a "spur". Also, they could just call it Riksvei/Fylkesvei 7 and be done with it. We just got rid of the stupid dual-E 6 business in Trondheim so this one I really don't get...


----------



## IceCheese

^^Perhaps they had to do it to make Oslo a signed destination? I don't know the E-route rules, though...


----------



## MattiG

devo said:


> The signing is supposed to be finished this year, but there are no issues less than actually putting the signs up, as far as I understand. What I do not understand though, is why they will leave the part from Hønefoss to Sandvika as E 16. It is by any standards far to long to be called a "spur". Also, they could just call it Riksvei/Fylkesvei 7 and be done with it. We just got rid of the stupid dual-E 6 business in Trondheim so this one I really don't get...


Without that kludge it would be difficult to justify E16 being The Road connecting the two largest cities in Norway.

In my opinion, the whole system of E roads should be ramped down. It does not add much value any more, but it makes things complex because every single member country implements it differently. Why should the United Nations bother about numbering the European roads.


----------



## Ingenioren

*Rv13 Ryfast*

Plans for Ryfast has been approved by the government, so we are set to start construction this fall on the two twin-tube sub-sea tunnels. The 5,7km long Hundvåg tunnel will ramp of from a new E39 tunnel under central Stavanger, then the road runs trough a surface round-about before the 14,3km long Solbakk tunnel that reaches 290 meters below sea-level (longest and deepest sub-sea car tunnel). Construction cost is 690 million euro and the states share is 0%. Tolls for cars are expected at 32 euro for Solbakk tunnel and 3,7 euro for Hundvåg tunnel.

Opening is scheduled for 2018.










http://www.regjeringen.no/nb/dep/sd/dok/regpubl/prop/2011-2012/prop-109-s-20112012.html?id=682020
http://www.vegvesen.no/_attachment/63332/binary/18254


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Yowtzha that's an impressive project. The tolls are steep though... why can't the Norwegian government provide good infrastructure with the $ 500 billion+ oil fund? The interest on that fund alone could provide an excellent transportation system.


----------



## devo

And does this not reflect the cost of taking the ferry which will be obsolete?


----------



## MattiG

devo said:


> And does this not reflect the cost of taking the ferry which will be obsolete?


In general, the bridge toll is set in line with the replaced ferry ticket price. The relationship is not one-to-one, because the pricing structure differs: The ferries are priced by the vehicle and by the number of passengers. Most of the road toll booths collect the same money per a vehicle regardless of the number of passengers.

A Norwegian specialty is to collect road tolls before the road is complete. The current price tag of the Brimnes-Bruravik ferry is NOK 86 per a passenger cars and NOK 32 per a passenger. This includes the advance road toll of NOK 23+6. Thus, the list price of the ferry is NOK 63+26.

My wild guess is that the bridge toll for a passenger car in 2013 will be equal to a ferry list price of a vehicle plus one passenger plus 3% for the inflation, thus NOK 92.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Norwegian roads generally get toll-free rather fast, often within 15 years, except for the toll rings in cities.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Aerial video from the new Rv7 near Sokna. This new road will bypass a long detour, making Rv7 over 20 kilometers shorter (about 70% shorter) than via the old Rv7. This will also improve Rv7 as an option between Oslo and Bergen, especially in the summer.


----------



## ElviS77

ChrisZwolle said:


> Aerial video from the new Rv7 near Sokna. This new road will bypass a long detour, making Rv7 over 20 kilometers shorter (about 70% shorter) than via the old Rv7. This will also improve Rv7 as an option between Oslo and Bergen, especially in the summer.


It is equally important for the rv7/52/E16 link, of course.


----------



## MattiG

ChrisZwolle said:


> Norwegian roads generally get toll-free rather fast, often within 15 years, except for the toll rings in cities.


That is rather logical. The tolls are to cover an agreed part of the investment cost, interest, and collection cost but not the maintenance cost. 15 years is rather an optimal term for a loan. Adding years do not make the annual payments (nor the tolls) much cheaper.

Sometimes, a toll is de facto reintroduced. The people on the Hvaler island paid the tunnel road for 19 years. Soon after closing the toll booth, a new one was set up to collect money for a new bridge.

The advance payment is rather an odd element in the Norwegian system. You pay toll but you do not get anything for the money.


----------



## IceCheese

MattiG said:


> Sometimes, a toll is de facto reintroduced. The people on the Hvaler island paid the tunnel road for 19 years. Soon after closing the toll booth, a new one was set up to collect money for a new bridge.


This same thing is happening to the Oslofjord-tunnel. Vegvesenet is currently rushing so that the toll booth won't close as promised next year.


----------



## Suburbanist

MattiG said:


> The advance payment is rather an odd element in the Norwegian system. You pay toll but you do not get anything for the money.


Such system make a lot of sense financially, as it greatly reduces total interest collected indirectly as tolls over the life of the project.


----------



## devo

Such a system is also called taxes (road, fuel, emission), which could be collected in advance, and then stored in a fund and used whenever improvement on road network was needed. I wish Norway one day will get such a fund.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

They have a fund that's worth more than the nominal Norwegian economy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petroleum_Fund_of_Norway


----------



## rsrikanth05

MattiG said:


> A Norwegian specialty is to collect road tolls before the road is complete. The current price tag of the Brimnes-Bruravik ferry is NOK 86 per a passenger cars and NOK 32 per a passenger. This includes the advance road toll of NOK 23+6. Thus, the list price of the ferry is NOK 63+26.


Well, that's true in other parts of the world too. [Especially in India, where I am].

But, how would they collect toll before the bridge is complete?
YOu can't go anywhere on an incomplete bridge can you?


----------



## MattiG

rsrikanth05 said:


> Well, that's true in other parts of the world too. [Especially in India, where I am].
> 
> But, how would they collect toll before the bridge is complete?
> YOu can't go anywhere on an incomplete bridge can you?


It is added to the price of the ferry ticket.


----------



## SeanT

ChrisZwolle said:


> They have a fund that's worth more than the nominal Norwegian economy.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petroleum_Fund_of_Norway


 around 500 billion NOK:lol:


----------



## ElviS77

SeanT said:


> around 500 billion NOK:lol:


If you are referring to Statens Pensjonsfond - Utland (a.k.a. "Oljefondet", Govt Pension Fund Global), it is somewhat larger than that: "As of 30 June 2012 its total value is NOK 3,561 billion [1] ($594 bn)"...


----------



## SeanT

yes I was, wao!:nuts:


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Fantastic video with the possible solutions for a fixed link across the Sognefjord.






Possible solutions;

* A suspension bridge with a main span of 3.700 m and pylons of 450 m tall.
* A floating box girder bridge
* A floating tunnel 20 m below the surface
* A combination of a floating bridge and tunnel
* A floating cable-stayed bridge with 250 m tall pylons, moored to the seabed like oil platforms.


----------



## metasmurf

Really nice video. The guy speaking speaks so clearly that I understood everything


----------



## ChrisZwolle

I noticed that too, I could understand quite a bit of it.


----------



## Ingenioren

A video from a less spectacular project here, it's the U/C section of E18 past Mysen on the Stockholm highway:


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

ChrisZwolle said:


> Fantastic video with the possible solutions for a fixed link across the Sognefjord.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Possible solutions;
> 
> * A suspension bridge with a main span of 3.700 m and pylons of 450 m tall.
> * A floating box girder bridge
> * A floating tunnel 20 m below the surface
> * A combination of a floating bridge and tunnel
> * A floating cable-stayed bridge with 250 m tall pylons, moored to the seabed like oil platforms.


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...


----------



## ChrisBerg91

Has anybody noticed that we are swiching from white to yellow markings for the inner roadsidemarkings on the motorways and expressways in Norway lately??


----------



## IceCheese

^^Yepp, we've been discussing it in another thread: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=444455&page=12

They started implementing it 1/2 year ago.


----------



## IceCheese

Last element of Hardangerbrua up now:











There's also a video in the link: http://www.nrk.no/nyheter/distrikt/hordaland/1.8387900


Some weather they're working in


----------



## rsrikanth05

^^Looks beautiful.
How long till it opens?


----------



## Þróndeimr

^^ in June next year


----------



## JeremyCastle

Once the bridge is done, will it be faster to take the rv7/rv40 to Oslo from Bergen, or will it still be better to take the E16 the whole way or even the E16 to rv7? How much time will the bridge shave off?

I know that they are working on this project on the rv7 which should help travel times as well: http://www.vegvesen.no/Riksveg/Sokna


----------



## Ingenioren

E16 to Rv7, Fv40 is a slow road. The next sensible project would be the Hardangervidda tunnel to make a whole-year mountaincrossing.


----------



## Ingenioren

Two winning proposals for 3.7km long crossing of Sognefjorden:

Reinertsen: Floating bridge with a 1km long floating underwater pipe in the middle:









Aas Jacobsen: Floating suspension bridge with 3 span, each 1.2 km:










http://www.tu.no/bygg/2012/11/30/disse-gigantbruene-skal-gjore-fjordene-fergefrie


----------



## ChrisZwolle

I think the floating suspension bridge is considered safer in people's perception.


----------



## alb92

I'm hoping for the part floating bridge and part floating underwater tube wins.

Now that would be something quite extraordinary and something to be proud of.

However, I would put my money on the floating suspension bridge (which in all fairness will be quite a cool bridge anyway).


----------



## rsrikanth05

Guys, could someone provide me with a few official [govt releases or press] on this in English?
I would like to add them to the article on the English Wikipedia.


----------



## suburbicide

*Convoy driving in bad weather (snow)*

Is this common in countries other than Norway?

When the weather is bad (but not so bad that the road has to be closed altogether) you're only allowed over certain mountain passes when following a plow truck in a convoy limited to a certain number of people. For safety reasons, only one convoy is allowed on the restricted section of road at a time. This can lead to hours of waiting time.

Heres' a video from convoy over Hardangervidda:


----------



## ElviS77

rsrikanth05 said:


> Guys, could someone provide me with a few official [govt releases or press] on this in English?
> I would like to add them to the article on the English Wikipedia.


You may want to start with this:

http://www.vegvesen.no/_attachment/...rjefri+E39+summary+January+2012+(English).pdf

You might also find this useful:

http://www.vegvesen.no/Vegprosjekter/ferjefriE39/English

Both from the Norwegian Public Roads Administration, I'll see what I can dig up from the government's site.


----------



## rsrikanth05

ElviS77 said:


> You may want to start with this:
> 
> http://www.vegvesen.no/_attachment/...rjefri+E39+summary+January+2012+(English).pdf
> 
> You might also find this useful:
> 
> http://www.vegvesen.no/Vegprosjekter/ferjefriE39/English
> 
> Both from the Norwegian Public Roads Administration, I'll see what I can dig up from the government's site.


Thank you very very much!
:cheers:


----------



## Ingenioren

Video from E6 north of Lillehammer, new tunnel and upgrade of old road to 2+1:


----------



## ChrisZwolle

*E39*

A realigned part of E39 opened to traffic today along the northern side of the Sognefjord. It's near the villages Torvund and Teigen and includes a 2.600 meter tunnel.


----------



## rsrikanth05

^^2.600meter? You mean 2600 right?


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Most of Europe uses the decimal mark to separate thousands. 2.600 is 2600 meters or 2,600 meters in U.S. style.


----------



## rsrikanth05

ChrisZwolle said:


> Most of Europe uses the decimal mark to separate thousands. 2.600 is 2600 meters or 2,600 meters in U.S. style.


or UK style.
I'm sorry, I did not know.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

*E6 Sør-Trondelag*

A 143 kilometer stretch of E6 will be upgraded south of Trondheim. 66 kilometers from the Oppland border to Ulsberg will be modernized. Another 40 kilometers to Støren will be widened to a 2+1 road with median barrier and the northernmost 37 kilometers to near Trondheim will be widened to 2x2 lanes.

The costs are 10.8 billion NOK or € 1.47 billion at current exchange rates. Part of the cost will be recovered by tolls, as is common throughout Norway. 

Construction of the first segments will likely commence in 2014.

map:


----------



## metasmurf

50 million NOK is nothing when it comes to road construction. If they decide to widen it later it will obviously cost more since machines have to be brought out again. hno:


----------



## rsrikanth05

metasmurf said:


> 50 million NOK is nothing when it comes to road construction. If they decide to widen it later it will obviously cost more since machines have to be brought out again. hno:


Yes, and land acquisition might turn out to be a problem.


----------



## devo

... Not to mention traffic going straight through the construction site.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

*fewer traffic fatalities in 2012*

Norwegian traffic fatalities were at a record low in 2012, Vegvesen reports. Just 154 people were killed on the Norwegian roads, 14 less than in 2011, which continues the downward trend of traffic fatalities. The amount of traffic fatalities is the lowest since 1950. There were no traffic fatalities at all in Finnmark, the first time a county recorded not a single traffic fatality since 1939.


----------



## suburbicide

ChrisZwolle said:


> Norwegian traffic fatalities were at a record low in 2012, Vegvesen reports. Just 154 people were killed on the Norwegian roads, 14 less than in 2011, which continues the downward trend of traffic fatalities. The amount of traffic fatalities is the lowest since 1950.


Compare that to the 560 who died in the peak year of 1970, a time when there was far less traffic. It really shows how much safer cars and roads have become.


----------



## Galro

suburbicide said:


> It really shows how much safer cars and roads have become.


... And how much better tires are, how much less people drink before they drive, how much lower speed limits are on "dangerous roads", how much more intensive Drivers education is, how much harder it is to modify cars etc. 

The road and the cars are hardly the only thing that have changed.


----------



## JeremyCastle

Is there a overview map that shows Norway's roads with a different color for each speed limit? I would be interested in obtaining/purchasing such a map.


----------



## Galro

JeremyCastle said:


> Is there a overview map that shows Norway's roads with a different color for each speed limit? I would be interested in obtaining/purchasing such a map.


Here is a electronic map: http://vegvesen.avinet.no/default.aspx?gui=1&lang=1#

Just check the boxes with whatever info you want to show to the left. You have to zoom in a little bit before this info gets visible on the map.

Color explanation:


----------



## IceCheese

^^The service doesn't seem to be correct nor updated. I'm kind of intrigued by the way they've already chosen a color for 110 km/h. I want to see where they would've placed it if they could :|


----------



## keber

Galro said:


> The road and the cars are hardly the only thing that have changed.


Wrong. A 50 km/h head-on colision in 1970's car with a wall would end up deadly whereas in modern car it would end with some bruises only. Not to mention ABS, ESP, far better tires etc. which have prevented numerous accidents, many of them even deadly.
And roads have changed, especially many intersections that were redesigned for improved visibility and safety.


----------



## Galro

keber said:


> Wrong. A 50 km/h head-on colision in 1970's car with a wall would end up deadly whereas in modern car it would end with some bruises only.


Eh, you say I'm wrong in saying cars and roads is not the only thing that have changed ...


keber said:


> Not to mention ABS, ESP, *far better tires* etc. which have prevented numerous accidents, many of them even deadly.
> And roads have changed, especially many intersections that were redesigned for improved visibility and safety.


Yet you here give a example (the same example I already gave) of another thing besides cars and roads that have changed. :nuts:


----------



## MattiG

*Cheese Fire Gone Out*

Norway has finally got control over the fire of 27 tons of goat cheese, which was active for five days. The fire took place on the Brattli tunnel on the road 827 in the northern Norway. The tunnel is expected to remain closed for several weeks for cleaning, inspection and repair.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sidesho...e-closed-norwegian-tunnel-week-004030955.html

https://maps.google.fi/?ll=68.12970...Xgki6IJCvaICj9MwGJYBog&cbp=12,60.87,,0,-10.19


----------



## IceCheese

^^That's a lot of cheese! 

Luckily I already have some in my fridge, so I won't run out...


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Is it already known when the tolls at the Bømlafjord Tunnel will be lifted? Some sources say 2012/2013.


----------



## Ingenioren

1. April this year.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

I found this article where it says 30 April 2013.

http://www.bt.no/nyheter/okonomi/He...-betale-i-tre-ekstra-manader-for-2828352.html


----------



## Ingenioren

Ok i remembered wrong....


----------



## ChrisZwolle

The reason I started searching "april 2013" was because I thought 1 April was a joke


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Moose statistics;

Each year, 1300 moose get killed after a traffic collision on Norwegian roads. In addition, 650 moose are run over by trains annually. Approximately 13 000 moose were killed in road traffic in the past 10 years. Most moose were killed in Nord-Trøndelag, Nordland and Hedmark. An additional 35 000 moose are killed by hunters each year. The amount of moose in Norway is approximately 120 000.

Moose are very large animals and a collision with a car usually results in the car being totaled.

http://www.vegvesen.no/Om+Statens+vegvesen/Media/Siste+nyheter/Vis?key=426226


----------



## rsrikanth05

^^Ouch. That sounds painful.
Don't the roads have any barriers to prevent these animals from entering?


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Usually only the more important roads in the south have fences (like E6).


----------



## MattiG

ChrisZwolle said:


> Usually only the more important roads in the south have fences (like E6).


The typical cost to build an elk fence is about 40,000 per a road kilometre in Finland. In Norway perhaps some more, as everything. Multiplying this by the length of the road network will give interesting results.

You just cannot put all the roads inside the fences. Elks move around, and need rather large living areas. Using a lot of fences makes it necessary to create those structures called "green bridges". They cost 0,5 to 1 million euros.

https://maps.google.fi/maps?q=samma...d=_b1rqrOpF2DhmgJacmsIXQ&cbp=12,286.02,,0,0.8


----------



## Stahlsturm

rsrikanth05 said:


> ^^Ouch. That sounds painful.
> Don't the roads have any barriers to prevent these animals from entering?


We have the occasional moose wandering in from Poland and traffic cameras show that they can jump the existing deer fences on German motorways no problem. It's a very infrequent problem so far but if they decide to recolonize Germany we're in for a very nasty surprise.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

MattiG said:


> Using a lot of fences makes it necessary to create those structures called "green bridges". They cost 0,5 to 1 million euros.


I wish ecoducts were that cheap in the Netherlands. € 10+ million is the norm here. The Netherlands spends € 500 million on ecoducts between 2010 and 2018.


----------



## Ingenioren

On non-motorways there could be level crossings tough (as there used to be on E6 trough Northern Akershus.)


----------



## suburbicide

Statens Vegvesen (Norwegian Public Roads Administration) have uploaded a video with pictures of scenery/artwork/rest stops along the designated National Tourist Routes.


----------



## Þróndeimr

E39 toll stations, Trondheim-Kristiansand by car = 1927kr vs. 600kr by air.
http://www.vg.no/bil-og-motor/artikkel.php?artid=10107247


----------



## OulaL

Þróndeimr said:


> E39 toll stations, Trondheim-Kristiansand by car = 1927kr vs. 600kr by air.


So these are the tolls for the road that would substitute today's ferries on this route.

Then again, would you actually use E39 for this whole route? Or rather drive via Oslo? How much would that cost?


----------



## ChrisZwolle

1 hour flying versus 2 days worth of driving when all the bridges and tunnels are completed in 2030 or so. I think VERY few traffic will drive the entire route of E39, some stretches probably do not get more than 2000 vehicles per day. It's not really a useful comparison if you ask me.


----------



## Þróndeimr

^^ very true, and by 2030 E6 between Trondheim-Oslo and Oslo-Kristiansand will be a lot faster than today. Typical journalism to write articles such as that one!


----------



## metasmurf

These prices will obviously scare off tourists. Personally, I would never drive it for that amount.


----------



## Suburbanist

As with many long routes, it will be much more useful for intermediate shorter trips, which are not served by air routes. 

In any case, I think Kristiansand-Trondheim is faster via Ortersund (in Sweden):


----------



## ChrisZwolle

metasmurf said:


> These prices will obviously scare off tourists. Personally, I would never drive it for that amount.


1927 NOK is about € 260. That's indeed steep for a 1085 kilometer route. It's about € 0.24 per kilometer on average, about double that of French toll roads.

On the other hand there is tendency to scrap the tolls after 10 - 15 years, so when all crossings are completed it is likely many older crossings have become toll free, so the total amount due is likely lower than 1927 NOK.

Also, I wonder if that map includes ferry tolls. They tend to be higher than bridge/tunnel tolls.


----------



## Ingenioren

Suburbanist said:


> In any case, I think Kristiansand-Trondheim is faster via Ortersund (in Sweden):


Östersund? That's impossible you would add 300km to the route! Fastest is via Oslo and Tynset.


----------



## Pannyers

Tourist don't care to have to pay some money for toll roads, when the prices won't rice much more. They still come for the country, the nice mountains, the fjords, et cetera.
When I drive towards Norway, I know we would drive a lot of kilometres, most times more than 5000. But that doesn't care, even the many ferry's and toll roads doesn't care.
We just want to see this nice country.
Greetings from The Netherlands.


----------



## Ingenioren

Tourists prefere to use Rv13 aubviously...


----------



## OulaL

ChrisZwolle said:


> Also, I wonder if that map includes ferry tolls. They tend to be higher than bridge/tunnel tolls.


Oh no. The whole map refers to the (obscure) future when there are no more ferries at all on E39 (except one to Denmark, of course).

How accurate the newspaper's calculations actually are is beyond me.


----------



## metasmurf

Victorinus said:


> Tourist don't care to have to pay some money for toll roads, when the prices won't rice much more. They still come for the country, the nice mountains, the fjords, et cetera.
> When I drive towards Norway, I know we would drive a lot of kilometres, most times more than 5000. But that doesn't care, even the many ferry's and toll roads doesn't care.
> We just want to see this nice country.
> Greetings from The Netherlands.


Wealthy tourists with campers/caravans won't complain about those prices, sure. However, there will be tourists who will simply more or less avoid this stretch which won't benefit the tourist business along this route.


----------



## Galro

metasmurf said:


> Wealthy tourists with campers/caravans won't complain about those prices, sure. However, there will be tourists who will simply more or less avoid this stretch which won't benefit the tourist business along this route.


Most cost-conscious tourist probably avoid Norway already. I don't think those tolls will mean much either way.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

*Krifast toll free*

The E39 / Krifast connection became toll free at 1 December 2012. The tolls were levied for a period of 20 years, relatively long for a Norwegian toll-financed project (usually they become toll free after 11 - 15 years).

http://www.nrk.no/nyheter/distrikt/more_og_romsdal/1.8970039


----------



## devo

And as a consequence they will remove the junctions and free-flow sliproads and put a roundabout there instead. I simply cannot believe the idiot who thought this was a good idea. They would save a lot of money on just removing the toll booths and repave the road.


----------



## Kjello0

Traffic going Trondheim - Molde had to cross the lane going Molde - Kristiansund. Not exactly a safe solution. Not optimal to merge with traffic coming from the tunnel without a merging lane either.

A roundabout is then a better solution. 

The optimal solution would of course have been to rebuild so we get free flow for those who comes from Trondheim as well. But that would have been to expensive.

In my opinion that doesn't matter to much. The future E39 should go across Frei. With bridges between Tingvoll and Frei, and Frei and Averøy. And hence less money used here is less money wasted.


----------



## Ingenioren

*E6 Mjøsa bridge*

Vegvesen abandoned the idea of a kilometerlong wooden bridge for a traditional steel and concrete. It also appears they will replace the planned round-about with a decent junction, but also demolish the existing bridge so local traffic will have to use the new one. So i guess this means the new road will have yellow signs. Construction is expected to start in 2018.

Illustration:









Article local newspaper:
http://www.oa.no/nyheter/article6509542.ece


----------



## JeremyCastle

I keep seeing news articles lately about Norwegian tunnels not meeting European Union safety standards. More specifically, many older tunnels don't meet them but new tunnels do? Even more specifically, the new freeway/motorway that is being planned between Bergen and Oss don't under current plans, meet those safety requirements.

Does this mean that older Norwegian tunnels are inherently unsafe, or EU requirements too strict? And if they are unsafe, why did Norway build them that way in the first place?

Another thing. I keep seeing and reading about all these new road projects scheduled all over Norway, but are there projects being planned that redo older tunnels that bring the width and the lighting to current 2013 standards, or Norwegians just ok with those older leaking tunnels that are hard to see in when driving through. As I've said before on this forum, I REALLY DON'T get the thinking and logic behind infrastructure planning in this country.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Norway would have to spend tens of billions of NOK to upgrade tunnels to the 2004/54/EG directive.

For example, Norwegian tunnels have very low traffic volumes, so installing expensive equipment on the level of Alpine tunnels is just not economically justifyable. The directive includes all tunnels over 500 m which are part of the trans-European network (not necessarily E-roads). It requires escape tunnels, no grades over 5%, emergency vehicle access from another tube every 1.5 km, etc. 

The EU is sometimes a nanny state where risks are to be avoided at all cost. I'm glad to see Norway uses the more pragmatic approach. Many tunnels have only a couple of thousand vehicles per day at best. This also reflects the tunnel construction cost and construction time, both of which are substantially lower in Norway than in Switzerland or Austria. 

The directive says nothing about the leakage some tunnels in Norway have, leading to excessive condensation on the windshield.


----------



## Galro

JeremyCastle said:


> As I've said before on this forum, I REALLY DON'T get the thinking and logic behind infrastructure planning in this country.


You seem to assume that we have plans. That's your first mistake.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Is there any nationwide planning or are projects just planned and financed on a case-by-case basis? The E39 ferry-free vision appears to be somewhat organized.


----------



## Galro

^^ Yes, we have what we call national transport plans which is supposed to say what gets prioritized. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Transport_Plan


----------



## MattiG

Galro said:


> ^^ Yes, we have what we call national transport plans which is supposed to say what gets prioritized.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Transport_Plan


Yes, of course, but is that plan followed by the politicians?

After transferring the ownership of most of the national road network to the regional level, I guess the local politicians might have more power to influence to the plans than earlier.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

*Rv 13 Ryfast*

Blasting for the Ryfast connection began this week.






The Ryfast is a 20 kilometer connection near Stavanger. The main tunnel is 14300 meters long and will set the following records;

* deepest undersea tunnel in the world (-290 m)
* longest undersea tunnel in the world (14300 m)
* longest twin-tube road tunnel in Europe between 2018 and 2021


----------



## ChrisZwolle

*Rv 7 Hardanger Bridge*

The Hardanger Bridge will open in August, 2 months later than originally planned. It was considered not safe to execute works while the bridge is already carrying traffic.


----------



## Ingenioren

Construction of E6 trough Oppdal starts this year, 3 round-abouts and 50km/h limit to make sure the new road is a terribly outdated from the start:


----------



## IceCheese

-_-


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

Yeah, a disgrace, decades of planning and this is the result. Lets get a new team on the bridge in September....
http://www.dn.no/forsiden/politikkSamfunn/article2576233.ece


----------



## Galro

Ingenioren said:


> Construction of E6 trough Oppdal starts this year, 3 round-abouts and 50km/h limit to make sure the new road is a terribly outdated from the start:


Why don't they at least move it so it don't go through the town?


----------



## metasmurf

Galro said:


> Why don't they at least move it so it don't go through the town?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YcXMhwF4EtQ


----------



## IceCheese

Farmer's party politics on it's best. That's what you get for letting them rule Ministry of Transportation for freaking *8 years*!!


----------



## ChrisZwolle

*E39 Sognefjord Bridge / Tunnel*

Great English-language video representing the options to span the 3.7 kilometer wide Sognefjord.


----------



## RV

IceCheese said:


> Farmer's party politics on it's best. That's what you get for letting them rule Ministry of Transportation for freaking *8 years*!!


Hope we had them back in Finland there. No we have Left, which means no motorways or nothing for cars nearly at allo.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

*E39 Rogfast / Boknafjord Tunnel*

A new video of the E39 Rogfast project, which consists of the 25.5 kilometer twin-tube, four-lane undersea tunnel at -385 m and a 4 km underground spur to a small island. Construction will likely commence in 2015.

The project will break 4 world records;

* longest subsea road tunnel
* deepest undersea tunnel
* longest twin-tube road tunnel
* longest overall road tunnel


----------



## Kjello0

Terrible project in my opinion. Should have went for a set of bridges. Same goes for the U/C project Ryfast.










Then we could have had this in a few years.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

*Rv7 Hardanger Bridge*

The Hardanger Bridge will open on 17 August 2013, Vegvesen reports. :cheers:


----------



## OulaL

ChrisZwolle said:


> The Hardanger Bridge will open on 17 August 2013, Vegvesen reports. :cheers:


Sweet. I wonder how this will affect the distribution of Oslo-Bergen traffic at Hardangervidda and Filefjell, when both routes have become ferry free.

Filefjell is still more wintersafe, but 20 km longer. How much is the toll at Hardanger Bridge?


----------



## Galro

OulaL said:


> How much is the toll at Hardanger Bridge?


I don't think they have released a official price yet, but most article I've seen suggest around 150 NOK, or about 20 Euros. 

http://www.ba.no/nyheter/article6330494.ece


----------



## Ingenioren

Some april photos from Rv80 bridge outside Bodø - imagine if all Norwegian road projects had such spectacular good photo updates as this one:


















































































More here:
http://www.vegvesen.no/Riksveg/rv80tverlandsbrua/Nyhetsarkiv/461958.cms


----------



## ChrisZwolle

*E6 history*

I am trying to find out some history of the E6 in Oslo. Very few information is known, other than that Hvam - Berger (5.5 km) opened in the fall of 1964 as the first motorvei of Norway. 

A small segment of E6 however is older. On this photo you see the Ring 3 / E6 in Ulven. On the far left is an intersection with the link to E18.The construction side left (west) of the Ring 3 is the Vallhall Arena. Behind that is an industrial area where currently the trumpet interchange with E6 is located. This segment opened in 1962. E6 traffic uses this segment for about 600 meters.









Photo taken in 1967. From Oslobilder.

This is the segment on Google Maps:
Google Maps


----------



## ChrisZwolle

*E6 history*

This 1956 aerial photo shows Teisen. It looks like they did reserve space for E6, which currently runs in front of the curved building.










This 1969 photo shows the tunnel at Bryn nearly completed.









E6 in Manglerud. It runs left-right behind the church. This photo is from 1964, but it is unclear whether E6 is completed here. It's about 1 kilometer away from the photo above.









Also in Manglerud. The road is the E6, which had two lanes back then. Photo from 1961-1962.









Again Manglerud, in 1965. The roundabout on the left currently has a tunnel underneath it for through traffic, but I don't know when it was constructed.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

*E6 history*

This 1995 photo shows Ryen to the left and Manglerud to the right. The E6 turns east here for a short while. The roundabout was still used by all traffic back then. The tunnel underneath it was likely constructed by the late 1990s.


----------



## Luki_SL

*Bridge collapses in Trondheim (E6)*



> *Bridge collapses in Trondheim
> 
> At least one person was missing and several injured after a bridge under construction collapsed on the outskirts of Trondheim Wednesday afternoon. Emergency crews were still scrambling to reach a car trapped under the rubble.
> *
> Anders Bang Danielsen of the Trondheim police confirmed that at least six persons were injured when the unfinished bridge collapsed at around 2:30pm onto the roadway below at Leangen in Trondheim. The construction project is part of improvements being made to the eastbound portion of the busy *E6 *highway through Trondheim.
> 
> The person missing is the driver of a car pinned under the collapsed bridge. Danielsen said it was unclear whether there also were passengers in the car or whether other cars were caught under the rubble as well.
> 
> “I’m afraid at least one vehicle with persons inside is caught under the bridge,” Danielsen told Norwegian Broadcasting (NRK). He said between six and eight other persons were injured and sent to St Olavs Hospital in Trondheim.
> 
> Rescue crews reported that they had cleared enough rubble by late afternoon to see the car but still couldn’t get to it. Danielsen told NRK the rescue work was expected to take several more hours. Police, fire brigades and ambulance crews were on the scene including an air ambulance. Police also called in help from neighbouring sheriffs’ offices.
> 
> Arild Heimdal of a local car dealership located near the bridge told NRK he heard “a terrible rumbling noise” and customers started yelling that “the bridge had fallen down.” He said there were many people working on the bridge and that he and others were “shocked” by the collapse.
> 
> “There’s always a lot of traffic under this bridge,” he said, adding that it was being expanded. “There had to be people under it, I can’t imagine anything else,” he said.
> 
> Harald Inge Johnsen, project leader for the state highway department (Statens vegvesen) said it was “complete chaos” in the area. Heavy construction equipment was being used “to clear the rubble and see what’s under it,” he told NRK.


http://www.newsinenglish.no/2013/05...wsinenglish/AzQS+(Views+and+News+from+Norway)


----------



## ChrisZwolle

It's not the E6 main route, but a spur route into Trondheim, which is currently being widened to 2x2 lanes. The new bridge collapsed. Additionally, they are building a new tunnel to extend the road to the city center. 

The exact location is here


----------



## Þróndeimr

^^ two people are missing under that new 2 lane bridge that collapsed as they were poring concrete on top of it. Both the road going over and the road going under is been expanded to 2x2 lane roads these days.

Photos by me.









*View large panorama*


----------



## ElviS77

ChrisZwolle said:


> This 1995 photo shows Ryen to the left and Manglerud to the right. The E6 turns east here for a short while. The roundabout was still used by all traffic back then. The tunnel underneath it was likely constructed by the late 1990s.


OK, some pointers. The E6 ran through Oslo city centre and not along Store Ringvei (the current Ring 3) until the completion of the (then) 2-lane expressway between Klemetsrud and Vinterbro in the 1980s. Southwards, it followed Mosseveien (current E18) together with the E18 down to Vinterbro. To the north, it was routed along Strømsveien from Galgeberg and northwards. Before the Djupdalen motorway, the then rv 50 ran along Trondheimsveien and the current rv 4 to Gjelleråsen. 

The E18 and the E6 met in the middle of Gamlebyen where the E6 followed city streets. Quite a few images of the old rv 1 which became the E6 in 1965 can be found on this site: 

www.riksvei.no

If you look at an Oslo map, the E6 first followed (south to north) Mosseveien-Oslo Gate-St. Hallvards gate-Strømsveien. The road was improved in increments, and even after the realignment along Ring 3 and rv 160 Ulven-Ryen-Klemetsrud-Vinterbro, the E6 kept its number through the Vålerenga tunnel (opened late 80s) as an arm to the main alignment. For a while, this was renumbered as the rv 190, now, it's back as an arm of the E6.


----------



## ElviS77

ChrisZwolle said:


> Photo taken in 1967. From Oslobilder.


Strømsveien mentioned in my previous post is the road running left-right in the front of the above picture. The current E6 runs along the so-called Ulvensplitten, constructed behind the red barn you can see in the top right part of the picture.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Yes, those small houses along the road have been demolished to make space for the new expressway (we can hardly call it a motorway with bus stops and right in, right out interchanges).


----------



## Galro

ElviS77 said:


> The E18 and the E6 met in the middle of Gamlebyen where the E6 followed city streets. Quite a few images of the old rv 1 which became the E6 in 1965 can be found on this site:
> 
> www.riksvei.no


What a nice page.


----------



## ElviS77

ChrisZwolle said:


> Yes, those small houses along the road have been demolished to make space for the new expressway (we can hardly call it a motorway with bus stops and right in, right out interchanges).


Strømsveien wasn't officially designated "motortrafikkvei" until a couple of years ago, even though there hasn't been at-grade interchanges between Helsfyr and start of motorway at Alnabru for years. The Ring 3 is, incidentally, not posted expressway, though, since there is an older section with pavements. There are no more at-grade interchanges, though, but the distance between interchanges and the capacity of many of them are still substandard. The proposed Manglerud tunnel and U/C Løren tunnel will take care of the worst, though.


----------



## ElviS77

Galro said:


> What a nice page.


Absolutely I'd like to see someone making a similar effort concerning the E18 (rv 40) and rest of E6 (rv 50)...


----------



## Galro

ElviS77 said:


> Strømsveien wasn't officially designated "motortrafikkvei" until a couple of years ago, even though there hasn't been at-grade interchanges between Helsfyr and start of motorway at Alnabru for years. The Ring 3 is, incidentally, not posted expressway, though, since there is an older section with pavements. *There are no more at-grade interchanges, though*, but the distance between interchanges and the capacity of many of them are still substandard. The proposed Manglerud tunnel and U/C Løren tunnel will take care of the worst, though.


What about this one?


----------



## ElviS77

Galro said:


> What about this one?


Yeah, I'll grant you that one. Not a full intersection, though, and that part will eventually be replaced by the Manglerud tunnel, of course.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

*Melkøysund Tunnel*

An interesting feature I found near Hammerfest in the far north of Norway; a private 2.3 kilometer sub-sea road tunnel. De Melkøysund Tunnel connects the island of Kvaløya (where Hammerfest is located) with the tiny island of Melkøya, where a large LNG plant was built. The tunnel is only accessible for employees. It opened in 2003.


----------



## kubam4a1

Is the Oslo daily such a traffic jam disaster as today at tomtom?


----------



## Ingenioren

No. Today was exceptional!


----------



## Galro

kubam4a1 said:


> Is the Oslo daily such a traffic jam disaster as today at tomtom?


I don't know how it was today at Tomtom, but the city does have huge problems with traffic jams. It's probably due to a combination of outdated infrastructure and suburban sprawl.


----------



## IceCheese

What a hell hno: Does anyone know what was going on?


----------



## ChrisZwolle

According to Aftenposten most people took an additional day off to have a 5-day weekend combined with constitution day.

Oslo has a fairly extensive network of express roads, but much of it is heavily substandard by today's motorway standards. Even though not all fast roads around Oslo have motorway status, they are used as if they are motorways.


----------



## metasmurf

I have a question regarding E39 between the end of the new tunnel and road project Eiganestunnelen and the planned Rogfast tunnel entrance near Randaberg. The current road is an ordinary 2-lane road with level crossings and some on/off ramps. Are there any plans for this stretch?










graphics: Statens Vegvesen.


----------



## Kjello0

I think E39 Smiene - Harestad is the project your'e looking for. That project will close the gap between Eiganestunnelen and Rogfast.
This is the alternative Statens Vegvesen has gone for.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Have they ever used tunnel boring machines for road tunnels in Norway? All I see are shield tunnels dug with blasting.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

kubam4a1 said:


> Is the Oslo daily such a traffic jam disaster as today at tomtom?





IceCheese said:


> What a hell hno: Does anyone know what was going on?


Today appears to be equally bad.


----------



## keokiracer

edit


----------



## suburbicide

ChrisZwolle said:


> Have they ever used tunnel boring machines for road tunnels in Norway? All I see are shield tunnels dug with blasting.


Tunnel boring machines were used on some road tunnels in the 70s/80s. They haven't been used in recent years though.


----------



## Ingenioren

Usually there isn't more than 5 km jam entering Oslo from E18 Mosseveien, yesterday it was more like 15 km - and it was moving more slowly than usual (i passed Vinterbro after 9 am.)...


----------



## kubam4a1

Honestly I didn't expect the situation in Oslo to be that bad, with the entire ring road ready (but only 4 lanes). And I assume that due to so-called enviromental reasons no chances for widening?

I think certain well - developed European countries should picture and follow Dutch,and to an extent Danish policies from recent years as far as the highways-around-the-capital development is concerned.


----------



## Ingenioren

Some of it is being widened to 3 + 3.


----------



## kubam4a1

Thanks for the info, have you got AADT data?


----------



## ElviS77

Ingenioren said:


> Some of it is being widened to 3 + 3.


The biggest issue is, of course, the lack of quality on- and off-ramps, the short distance between intersections and weaving problems. The eastern part of Ring 3 needs 3+3 lanes plus better intersections. 2+2 is sufficient on the western part, but ramps need to be extended and some exits need to be removed. Neither is happening, though, at least not in the short term.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

*Vinge Tunnel*

http://www.nrk.no/sognogfjordane/i-dag-opna-bremangersambandet-1.11029842

A new 4.8 kilometer tunnel opened in Sogn og Fjordane last Thursday. It's part of the Bremangersambandet project, which consists of 8.4 kilometers of new road (Fv 616) and shortens coastal traffic by 40 km or 45 minutes.

location


----------



## Sunfuns

kubam4a1 said:


> I think certain well - developed European countries should picture and *follow Dutch*,and to an extent Danish policies from recent years as far as the highways-around-the-capital development is concerned.


It helps being flat and having extra high population density.


----------



## Coccodrillo

Norwegian tunnels are always interesting. I didn't know this multiple tunnel in Tromso: https://maps.google.ch/maps?q=Troms...Tromso&hnear=Tromsø,+Troms,+Norvegia&t=m&z=16

And this portal looks like a parking: https://maps.google.ch/maps?q=Troms...ErnRPPYdSN5XuMKVSU8TVg&cbp=12,332.55,,0,10.86

An a sixt branch is planned!


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

I tried to compile an overview of urban Norwegian road tunnels about 5 years ago. Some tunnels have been added since, but not in Tromsø, I believe:


54°26′S 3°24′E;16935698 said:


> ^^ The Stockholm tunnels and the tunnel network of Praha look impressive.
> 
> To show to which degree tunnels have been an essential part of city planning in Norway lately, I have collected here a few maps/illustrations of urban tunnel systems in Norway that I am aware of. Like most of the Norwegian road system, most of the urban tunnel roads are not motorways. In most of the maps/illustrations tunnels are drawn with dashed lines. My "travel" starts in the north and continues around the coast line...
> 
> *Tromsø (65 000)*
> Despite it's small size and isolated location, Tromsø has one of the most complete underground road systems of Norway:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most of the network is two-way traffic roads with roundabout intersections, but the tunnel under the bay (Breivikatunnelen E8) is 2+2.
> 
> 
> *Trondheim (163 000) *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except Grilstadtunnelen, Trondheim's tunnel road system as shown above is still not completed. The western tunnels (two-way highways) will be completed in two years time, currently only one tunnel and the underground roundabout is open:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (Picture taken before opening). The construction of the new eastern road system, which will be 2+2 (and as far as I know, motorway) will start next year, and also include a new bridge across the river:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Bergen (246 000)*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Highway 555 is motorway and E39 North/E16 is 2+2 with motorway characteristics, whereas I believe highway 540 is two-way.
> 
> Bergen also has a new 10 km 2+2 link, of which 8 km will be tunnels, in the south-west under construction ("Western ringroad") which will connect with the 555 and 549:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Stavanger (118 000)*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The tunnels are two-lane/two-way roads I believe
> 
> *Kristiansand (78 000)*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The E18/E39 are 2+2 with motorway characteristics
> 
> *Arendal (40 000)*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two-lane/two-way tunnels
> 
> *Drammen (59 000)*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except E18, whose tunnel shortly will be motorway, the tunnels of Drammen are twoway/two lanes.
> Indicated by name only on the map above is a quite unique tunnel of Drammen called "Spiralen" (the Spiral):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This tunnel spirals 163 m up and is 1650 m long. It's purpose? To give the Drammen population easy access to the ski areas on the hill above the city. I have no clue how they maneged to finance this little-trafficated tunnel back in 1961.
> 
> *Sandvika* (adm. center of Bærum, 108 000, suburb of Oslo)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> E16 is 2+2, the other tunnels probably 2-lane/2-way
> 
> *Oslo (553 000)*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tunnel system at the western end of Ring 3, 2+2 with motorway characteristics
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Road system of central Oslo. The E18 tunnel is motorway (3+3), the others either 2+2 or two-way (except ramps of the E18 tunnel, of course).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Road system of eastern (central) Oslo. The highway 190 and the road (wrongly?) labeled E6 are 2+2 or 3+3 with motorway characteristics
> 
> As discussed above, the eastern and central tunnel systems will be connected once the harbor tunnel is finnished (As you can see, you don't have to drive for 6 km to get to the nearest exit!):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An overview of the highway systems of Oslo with current tunnels indicated can be found here.
> 
> In addition to the tunnels mentioned above, there are also many smaller tunnels and concrete covers where office buildings etc. are built, especially on the E18 going west out of Oslo.
> 
> *Lillestrøm/Strømmen* (45 000, north-east of Oslo)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Highway 159 is a motorway
> 
> *Future developments*
> Regarding the Oslo-area at least, it seems like the development of putting the highways down into tunnels will accelerate further, it's strategy that has relatively broad support among all parties. In these days the new 40-50 billion NOK transport plan of Oslo is treated by the political system, and it looks like almost the whole length of E6 and E18 running through the city will be put under the surface, as well as several other roads. One part of this plan that has been discussed for a long time is the E18 from central Oslo west to beyond Sandvika, of more than 12 km:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Framnes (Close to Festningstunnelen) -Fornebu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fornebu-Ramstadsletta
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ramstadsletta-Sandvika
> 
> *PS*
> I have chosen not to include three cases where long subaqueous tunnels are entering some town centers, since the motivation behind building these tunnels was not to avoid urban area conflict but simply manage to cross a strait or fjord. The subaquous tunnels of Vardø (Europe's first), Kristiansund and Ålesund are in this class.


Alas some of my links from then seem to have died. Strange to see how the population figures appear so outdated already, Trondheim is 180 000 now I believe.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

It's only possible to do this trip in one day since the 1970s. Travel times improved from the 1980s onwards with the opening of many tunnels. The current travel time is circa 7.5 hours, depending on the exact route taken.

The _ruter mellom Oslo og Bergen_ is a contentious discussion in Norway  There are numerous options to travel between both cities. Most consider the Hardangervidda Route to be the fastest during the summer and the E16 the fastest during winter.


----------



## javimix19

Thank you for your very quick answer.

7.5 hours... is not bad considering orography and also that road is not a motorway so I think that is a good time.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

These are some of the options.


----------



## Sunfuns

It could be 4 h on a motorway or 2 h with a high speed train, but of course the amount of tunnels needed would be huge and the costs very high.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

*E39 Boknafjord Tunnel*

Statens Vegvesen has decided to reduce the planned grade in the Boknafjord Tunnel from 7 to 5% to create a safer tunnel. The uphill grade would have been circa 12 kilometers long in either direction.

This means the tunnel will be 1 kilometer longer (for a total length of 26.5 kilometers) and about 400 million NOK more expensive. Because they have to make a new "reguleringsplan", the tunnel will open to traffic slightly later, in 2023.


----------



## Hansadyret

OulaL said:


> Sweet. I wonder how this will affect the distribution of Oslo-Bergen traffic at Hardangervidda and Filefjell, when both routes have become ferry free.
> 
> Filefjell is still more wintersafe, but 20 km longer. How much is the toll at Hardanger Bridge?


More people will take Hardangervidda in the summer months. One way crossing of the bridge will cost 150 NOK i've read some place. From 2014 allso rv.7 Sokna-Ørgenvika opens wich will make the road 20km shorter as well.


----------



## Ingenioren

Rv52 Hemsedal is quicker than Fv7 Hardangervidda both during summer and winter, the road is straiter, have less caravans and avoids the ferry/bridge costs.


----------



## Northridge

Very satisfying clip from roadwork explosions. Trøndelag, Norway.


----------



## Agent 006

New E6-motorway between Trondheim and Stjørdal (Ranheim – Værnes) will only be designed for a speed of 90 km/h. A 100 km/h speed is apparently too costly, even though a cost-benefit analysis shows this option to be just as benefit as the 90 km/h alternative. A 100 km/h designed motorway could potentially have a speed limit of 120 km/h, while a 90 km/h road only have a speed potential of about 90-100 km/h I guess. 



> Vegdirektoratet godkjenner søknaden om å benytte geometri fra dimensjoneringsklasse H5 og redusert tverrprofil på 21,5 m fra dimensjoneringsklasse H9. Dette blir da gjeldende standard for E6 Ranheim-Værnes. Med dette som grunnlag vil fartsgrense 90 km/t godkjennes. Fartsgrense 100 km/t er ikke aktuelt.



Many Norwegian road planners should obviously have lost their job! They lack the ability to be farsighted and progress-minded.


----------



## Gsus

Agent 006 said:


> Vegdirektoratet godkjenner søknaden om å benytte geometri fra dimensjoneringsklasse H5 og redusert tverrprofil på 21,5 m fra dimensjoneringsklasse H9. Dette blir da gjeldende standard for E6 Ranheim-Værnes. Med dette som grunnlag vil fartsgrense 90 km/t godkjennes. Fartsgrense 100 km/t er ikke aktuelt.


Do you have a link? Can't find it....


----------



## ElviS77

^^

I also found that a wee bit strange. I can't find any official public plans for such a project. In addition, Statens Vegvesen currently use S7 and S9 (at least according to this: http://www.vegvesen.no/***/Publikasjoner/Handboker) to define road standard requirements. It's certainly possible that someone may eventually suggest a reduced standard for this road - it might unfortunately even become reality - but at this moment in time, I find the claim questionable.


----------



## Gsus

ElviS77 said:


> ^^
> 
> 
> I also found that a wee bit strange. I can't find any official public plans for such a project. In addition, Statens Vegvesen currently use S7 and S9 (at least according to this: http://www.vegvesen.no/***/Publikasjoner/Handboker) to define road standard requirements. It's certainly possible that someone may eventually suggest a reduced standard for this road - it might unfortunately even become reality - but at this moment in time, I find the claim questionable.



Maybe he's serving us inside information from Statens vegvesen, or their consultants? ;-)

The "Håndbok 017" is currently being revised, but I don't know when the updated version will be guiding. Roads that today are named S1, S2, S3 and on, will be named H1, H2, H3 and on. Some changes is for exampel on the S5/H5, that will be standard from AADT 6000-12000 (instead of 8000). The number of required passing sections is reduces from 3km per 10km of road, to at least 1km per 10km of road. Also, I think that passing lanes are not to be placed opposite of each other (2+2), but instead "the swedish way", with maximum 2+1.

Anyway, I thought they were planning from the earlier S7-S8, and not S9. 21,5 meter is wider than any S7/S8 road ever built, 0,5 meter narrower than minimum S9 demands. Traffic volumes indicates S9 tho....


----------



## Agent 006

Gsus said:


> Do you have a link? Can't find it....


Actually their starting to make a “reguleringsplan” for the stretch now.

I got the information from a document called _Prinsippskisse for planlegging E6 Ranheim - Værnes_. I can be found on the following address, if you click on the item "tilleggsdokumenter" on the site. Unfortunately you have to be registrated as an “oppdragssøker” to open it. So you must create a fictive account to get it. Alternatively I can send it over to you as a “vedlegg” if I got your 
e-mail address. 

http://www.doffin.no/search/show/search_view.aspx?ID=JUL200432


The document shows “Vegdirektoratet” allows “Statens vegvesen Region midt” to create a new standard just for this stretch alone. They call it H7+, and have the geometry of the new H5-standard, and almost the width of the new H9-standard (21,5 vs. 23 meter). 

Very strange I must say.


----------



## javimix19

I'm going to do a science fiction question I think, but I have to do it:

- Considering that Norway is the richest country in the world, why the government doesn't do a motorway between Bergen and Oslo? You have the money, perhaps is impossible considering the environment? I don't know and that's for I quest.


----------



## Groningen NL

Because there is not enough traffic to justify building a full motorway. If it was really needed it would've been built.


----------



## ElviS77

javimix19 said:


> - Considering that Norway is the richest country in the world, why the government doesn't do a motorway between Bergen and Oslo? You have the money, perhaps is impossible considering the environment? I don't know and that's for I quest.


Even if you combine all traffic crossing the mountains in southern Norway, the AADT doesn't exceed 5000, and much of that traffic isn't between Oslo and Bergen. Most people in Norway live along or not very far from the coast, particularly in the southeastern part of the country. We may eventually see a couple of quality 2-lane east-west links with motorway at each end, but that's it. An Oslo-Trondheim motorway isn't completely out of the question, though, but even that's stretching it in the most rural areas. We will however see a Oslo-Kristiansand motorway, and it's not particularly unlikely that it will continue to Stavanger and possibly Bergen. This is long-term, though.


----------



## ElviS77

Agent 006 said:


> The document shows “Vegdirektoratet” allows “Statens vegvesen Region midt” to create a new standard just for this stretch alone. They call it H7+, and have the geometry of the new H5-standard, and almost the width of the new H9-standard (21,5 vs. 23 meter).
> 
> Very strange I must say.


This is early days, the beginning of work with a "reguleringsplan". Without that, nothing's settled, and many "reguleringsplaner" are altered before the road becomes reality. BTW, the minimum standard for AADT 12-20000 and 100kph limit is 19 m, for 200000 plus it increases to 22 m. So why 21.5?


----------



## ElviS77

Gsus said:


> Anyway, I thought they were planning from the earlier S7-S8, and not S9. 21,5 meter is wider than any S7/S8 road ever built, 0,5 meter narrower than minimum S9 demands. Traffic volumes indicates S9 tho....


Precisely... The whole thing seems weird.


----------



## Agent 006

ElviS77 said:


> This is early days, the beginning of work with a "reguleringsplan". Without that, nothing's settled, and many "reguleringsplaner" are altered before the road becomes reality. BTW, the minimum standard for AADT 12-20000 and 100kph limit is 19 m, for 200000 plus it increases to 22 m. So why 21.5?


We could always hope for something better, but when road authorities at a national level have decided this solution, I clearly doubt any improvements will happen. hno:

BTW, the H7+ profile will look like this: 2,25 + 3,5 + 3,5 + 0,5 + 2,0 + 0,5 + 3,5 + 3,5 + 2,25 = 21,5. The only thing separating this from the H9 profile is the width of the emergency lanes, which is 2,25 m instead of 3,0 m.


----------



## Galro

I found a few historic pictures of Norwegian roads form the '60s



O-47-38 Norge: Høyfjellsovergang, fotografert i juni by National Library of Norway, on Flickr


G-32-60 Norge: Fagernes, Valdres, ca 1965 by National Library of Norway, on Flickr


G-32-58 Norge: Fagernes, Valdres, ca 1965 by National Library of Norway, on Flickr


Norge: Svinesund. Brua mellom Norge og Sverige. 65 m. fri høyde. 420 m. lang by National Library of Norway, on Flickr


Norge: Gudvangen, Nærøyfjord. Sogn by National Library of Norway, on Flickr


Norge: Parti fra vegen Røldal - Sauda. I bakgrunnen Røldal. by National Library of Norway, on Flickr


Norge: Horten. Fergen Horten - Moss by National Library of Norway, on Flickr


Norge: Parti fra helårsvegen over Haukelifjell, ved Svandalsflona by National Library of Norway, on Flickr


Norge: Valle, Setesdal by National Library of Norway, on Flickr


Norge: Måbødalen. Ruten Eidfjord - Fossli - Geilo by National Library of Norway, on Flickr


Norge: Måbødalen. Ruten Eidfjord - Fossli - Geilo by National Library of Norway, on Flickr

^^ That road was completely bypassed in 1986 with a series of spiral tunnels inside the mountain side. Here it is today: https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Måbø...331&oq=måbø&t=h&hq=Måbø,+Eidfjord,+Norge&z=15


----------



## Heico-M

OulaL said:


> There used to be a ferry connection between Lærdal and Gudvangen before the opening of the Lærdal tunnel, but as of now that service is mainly for tourists. (I'm not sure if they take cars at all.)
> 
> (EDIT: according to http://discoversognefjord.com/information/ they do. However I don't think the capacity is enough to handle all the E16 traffic, but maybe it helps a little anyway.)
> 
> The shortest and surely cheapest bypass between Oslo and Bergen is road 7 through Hardangervidda anyway.


Yes, I once took the ferry from Kaupanger to Gudvangen. It takes 2h30 or so. They do take cars, but not many.

Now, the Hardanger bridge will have a good start, then


----------



## Ingenioren

NordikNerd said:


> The southernmost Swedish/norwegian border has many unguarded entries, so shady people can easily choose other nearby roads to Norway.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is one option without border Control which I passed through in 1999.


There is still border controll even when there is no customs office - all crossings, even farm roads have camera surveillance. Mobile patrols are usually found further north as all 3 border crossings south of Halden need to use Fv22 to access the rest of Norway. I have also encountered control on the border itself, but this is rare.



kanterberg said:


> Last week I crossed the Svinesund bridge on the E6 into Norway. Immediately after the border, the motorway was closed and all traffic was diverted onto the first exit for customs control. The queues were quite long, but as I got closer to the actual check I could see that the officers were only stopping Polish/Bulgarian/Romanian registered cars. Norwegian, Swedish, Dutch and German registered cars were waved right through.
> 
> Is this standard procedure for Norwegian customs officers or something special going on this particular day? How often are there actual checks at the Svinesund-crossing? The day I was there certainly didn't paint a very nice picture with certain nationalities being targeted at the border.


They do random checks aswell as act upon tips. I am very rarely checked with my Halden-plate, but more frequently when i had Bergen plates. Also the local bus Strömstad - Halden is often checked. From Norway to Sweden is a different story - chance of being checked is practicly zero.


----------



## MattiG

Ingenioren said:


> From Norway to Sweden is a different story - chance of being checked is practicly zero.


What a surprise... Nobody is smuggling cheap things from Norway to Sweden...


----------



## ElviS77

Grauthue said:


> For the rest of rv. 22 I agree with you that it is a secondary road with no particular reason to prioritize it above the main national road network.


Since I started this with a previous rant: I never suggested prioritizing rv 22 above the main network, I was only stating the obvious, really - several fairly busy regional roads (particularly around Oslo) are in dire need of improvement.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

Except when selecting the red zone, the only time I have been stopped when traveling by car across the border was when I was going into Sweden, but that was way back in the 70s when I was a kid. 

Foreign trucks might get some extra attention this winter, btw. For a long time they have been required to have snow chains available. Now they finally also need to have winter tires on, in addition to an auto pass chip for the Norwegian toll roads. That continental truck drivers still are allowed to drive on slippery, winding, and narrow Norwegian winter roads without basic slippery road training is however completely reckless, IMHO.


----------



## ElviS77

54°26′S 3°24′E;105897122 said:


> I can't really agree here. Within a radius of 100-200 km from Oslo, the quality has really improved over the last decades, but outside this region very little has happened on the main routes. Although a few kms here and there have been reconstructed since the 1970s, the average road quality has at the same deteriorated due to insufficient maintenance. In addition, the traffic has increased by a factor of 2.35 since 1980 (probably more on the transit routes), and the speed limits have been lowered.


Of course the main roads are being improved and prioritized. But just as obvious is the fact that the rate of progress is way below acceptable and we still lack a national strategy which could speed things up to an acceptable level. Maintenance is obviously even more of an issue.



54°26′S 3°24′E;105897122 said:


> Before that happens, it does not make sense to greatly improve what I consider secondary roads like Rv 22 and the short cut to Skien you mention. Indeed, that secondary roads often are brought up to the same level as national main roads have been one of the major flaws with Norwegian (lack of) infrastructure strategy, IMO.


I agree with the lack of strategy and it's rather silly that regional and rural roads with an AADT in the hundreds sometimes are as good as or even better than the trunk roads. However, this is rarely if ever the case in the Oslo area, roads with a several-thousand AADT are sometimes too narrow for a yellow central line and most of the rest are old-fashioned, twisty and outright dangerous. That's before mentioning the state of disrepair these roads are in - the fv 33 was closed earlier this year. Not the busiest road, of course, but still more than 300 lorries a day... 

*Note, I also think the E6, E18, E39 Kristiansand-Bergen and a few other major arteries are (far) more important, but the Sognefjord bridge, for instance..? No effing way.* 

(The two roads mentioned were just examples I'd just driven, btw.)


----------



## MattiG

54°26′S 3°24′E;105996628 said:


> Except when selecting the red zone, the only time I have been stopped when traveling by car across the border was when I was going into Sweden, but that was way back in the 70s


I have been stopped a few times at the Finnish-Norwegian border in Kilpisjärvi at E8. That station is operated by Finland. The latest case dates back to 1991 in the direction to Finland. The officer asked their standard question: Where are you coming from. He looked rather odd when I replied: Berlin. But that was true.


----------



## Blackraven

54°26′S 3°24′E;105928909 said:


>


Question:
1) How many vehicles use this tunnel? (any numbers or data?)
2) Will this tunnel be subject to the safety improvement requirements being suggested by the European Union on or before year 2020?
3) Does the EU Directive also apply to roads or tunnels that only have like 3 cars a day or less?

With that said, it will cost minimum of 1 Billion Euros for 200 tunnels to comply with the directive. 

It is expensive..........but hey Norway is rich and has lots of money. 

And the money will be used for a good cause anyway (i.e. improvement of road infrastructure safety). Nothing to worry about 

If that 1 Billion would go to corrupt politicians, then that's when you should be worried.

But in this case, it's for the greater good.

Win-win situation


----------



## OulaL

54°26′S 3°24′E;105996628 said:


> Except when selecting the red zone, the only time I have been stopped when traveling by car across the border was when I was going into Sweden, but that was way back in the 70s when I was a kid.


I was stopped when driving with my friends on road 73 in Hattfjelldal in 2005. They searched our car for booze and cigarettes (but failed).

Interestingly the actual customs office is located 40 km from the border in Sweden – the same office also serves (far more important) E12 going to Mo i Rana. So _"yes we have and we are looking for the red lane"_ wouldn't have been an excuse at this point.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

Blackraven said:


> Question:
> 1) How many vehicles use this tunnel? (any numbers or data?)
> 2) Will this tunnel be subject to the safety improvement requirements being suggested by the European Union on or before year 2020?


1) About 2000 AADT, but probably significantly higher during summer 
2) See discussion above. Norway has with some adjustments accepted the tunnel directive, so improvements will be made. 

In Norway, tunnels are actually safer than other roads statistically, both numbers being low on a global scale. However, if we had a major disaster that could of course change the statistics significantly.


----------



## Galro

Blackraven said:


> Question:
> 1) How many vehicles use this tunnel? (any numbers or data?)


It had a AADT of 1967 in 2011.


----------



## OulaL

The Gudvangen tunnel wasn't a part of the E16 in the first place, but the road 50. 50 connected Gudvangen and Hol. I'm not sure how much the AADT was in those days, but it's reasonable to assume it was much less than today.

The end point of 50 was on E16 in Gudvangen; E16 on the other hand used the ferry between Gudvangen and Lærdal, until the Lærdal tunnel was completed. Nowadays 50 ends at the western end of the Lærdal tunnel.


----------



## OulaL

Update: The Gudvangen tunnel may be closed for a month at worst. The ferries at roads 7 and 13 have extra departures. Still, drivers are advised to prepare for waiting especially on weekends.

http://www.vegvesen.no/Om+Statens+vegvesen/Media/Siste+nyheter/Vis?key=506632


----------



## ChrisZwolle

E16 between Rv 4 and E6 west of Gardermoen Airport will become toll free on October 1, 2013.

According to Norwegian Wikipedia, this toll road was supposed to levy tolls until 2018. What is the reason for the early decomissioning of the tolls? Was the toll part paid off before schedule?


----------



## Gsus

ChrisZwolle said:


> E16 between Rv 4 and E16 west of Gardermoen Airport will become toll free on October 1, 2013.
> 
> According to Norwegian Wikipedia, this toll road was supposed to levy tolls until 2018. What is the reason for the early decomissioning of the tolls? Was the toll part paid off before schedule?


Probably higher traffic-volumes than expected i guess. E18 in northern Vestfold, and Rv 4 at Raufoss will also be toll-free soon, both earlier then expected.


----------



## MattiG

Gsus said:


> Probably higher traffic-volumes than expected i guess. E18 in northern Vestfold, and Rv 4 at Raufoss will also be toll-free soon, both earlier then expected.


Quite many Norwegian toll-financed road projects have collected money much faster than expected, and the toll booths have been closed several years before planned. Fatima 2 years, Trekantsambandet 3 years and Bjørøy 5 years, for instance. Folgefonn tunnel is expected to be paid down 2 years in advance and Eiksundsambandet eight years.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

Lower than expected interest rates gives many toll projects a helping hand as well.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

The Hardanger Bridge opened to traffic this afternoon. It is the third longest suspension bridge in Europe and the 10th longest in the world.


----------



## OulaL

ChrisZwolle said:


> The Hardanger Bridge opened to traffic this afternoon. It is the third longest suspension bridge in Europe and the 10th longest in the world.


So Bergen has a road connection again, after the Gudvangen tunnel fire...

The bridge toll is 150 NOK = 19 EUR. Unlike the ferry fare, this is independent of the number of passengers.


----------



## Heico-M

OulaL said:


> The bridge toll is 150 NOK = 19 EUR. Unlike the ferry fare, this is independent of the number of passengers.


I remeber I paid like 100 NOK two years ago for the ferry, so that is quite some money they want to have.

The good point is that the bridge will be free of charge once upon a time.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

*E18 Varodd Bridge, Kristiansand*

I was looking into the Varodd Bridge replacement.

The Varodd Bridge are actually two bridges, a suspension bridge built in 1956 and a concrete cantilever bridge built in 1994. They will replace the 1956 bridge with a new span identical to the 1994 bridge. 

I wonder if this is the first time in modern days that a large suspension bridge will be demolished. 

I also wondered about the addition of bus lanes on either side of the bridge. According to documentation, the bridge carries only 40 000 vehicles per day, which means congestion is very unlikely except for accidents. Why the separate bus lane?


----------



## devo

Oh hello there this is my home turf, as I live here in Kristiansand...

The bus lane is idiotic. Instead of a continuous junction lane from just to the right of the picture, over the bridge and a couple of hundred meters... Buses won't have ANY problems with traffic, and since they can run "through" the junction, they'll have this lane for them selves anyway. And as you say, 40.000 vehicles per day, no point at all. So why? Well, it looks good on the green statistics, look we have so and so many meters of bus lanes. You get the idea... (we get more money from the government if we can get car usage to decline)

Now to the fun facts: (correct me if I'm wrong)

· The old suspension bridge was northern Europe's longest suspension bridge when it opened.
· The new bridge from 1994 was also the largest (longest?) of it's kind when opened.
· Everything is prepared for a second bridge below water. Clever to avoid blasting rock underwater next to the current foundations.
· However, due to the addition of a third lane (and bike lane), it might be necessary to widen the platform for the foundations.
· The bridge from 1994 already has width for three lanes, the bike lane will be removed and moved over to the new bridge. This will create another crossing for bike traffic, which zig-zags E 18 a lot.
· There is not enough room for the new bridge now that bike and bus lane has been added, so the "edge" of the bridge will be built after the suspension bridge is demolished.
· As you can see in the picture, the old bridge has been recently repaved. This has to be done quite often, due to the fact that the asphalt layer on the bridge is very thin, and the cracks that occur in the joints of the bridge segments get deep.
· If there is an (unlikely) accident that will block both bridges, the only route around the Topdal fjord is a narrow road where two trucks cannot pass.

A photo of the suspension bridge just after it opened: 
(note that pedestrians were not considered important, the narrow pavement was replaced by the current (closed) pavement on each side of the bridge.)









Video of construction:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cd0yK71c8pM
Video of opening: 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ayEDUSJvPek


----------



## Galro

devo said:


> You get the idea... (we get more money from the government if we can get car usage to decline)
> ]


Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure this money depends on what kind of measurements you put in place to get a decline in car usage too. I.e. you will get less money if you have natural decline in car usage than if you have the same decline due to having put extra toll rings, congestion charge, bike lanes, bus lanes and stuff like that around the place. The politicians in Oslo have been rather angry at this as they have received less money as they have not introduced congestion charge but have still managed to get a lower increase in car usage than the population grows with.


----------



## RV

40 000 vehicles now means probably 60 000 in 30 years, so third lanes are justified. I really hate those empty bus lanes, they should all be converted into regular ones - Finland has them everywhere, it's so dumb to see two lanes with snail-slow traffic and one empty one on the side.


----------



## devo

Galro said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure this money depends on what kind of measurements you put in place to get a decline in car usage too. I.e. you will get less money if you have natural decline in car usage than if you have the same decline due to having put extra toll rings, congestion charge, bike lanes, bus lanes and stuff like that around the place. The politicians in Oslo have been rather angry at this as they have received less money as they have not introduced congestion charge but have still managed to get a lower increase in car usage than the population grows with.


You are absolutely right. Kristiansand will actually have to have zero (or less) growth in car traffic, since it has to be adjusted to population growth. And since we have toll rings with congestion charge we are in the safe box. Oslo is just an insane mess barely surviving on planning decisions made 50-60 years ago.



RV said:


> 40 000 vehicles now means probably 60 000 in 30 years, so third lanes are justified. (...)


Oh yes, the traffic is actually calculated to about 70.000 vehicles in 2040. So by all means, the third lane is justified, but as a bus lane? No, thank you, there is no need for that. Or, well it might be necessary until E 18/E 39 west from Gartnerløkka is completed. The queues from the single lane bridge after the Banehei Tunnel will some day reach the Varodd Bridge and that might, perhaps, block bus traffic. Another fact is that before the two tunnels through the town (Oddernes & Banehei Tunnel) were built, this road had a bus lane and 2+ lane going westbound (into town.)


----------



## MattiG

ChrisZwolle said:


> I wonder if this is the first time in modern days that a large suspension bridge will be demolished.


Finland built seven rather impressive suspension steel bridges between the years 1957 and 1964. The Hännilänsalmi bridge on the current road 4/E75 was opened in 1962, and it replaced the last ferry on the Finnish primary roads. 










The bridge was replaced by a not so impressive concrete cantilever bridge in 2009, and the suspension bridge was demolished. The bridge was smaller than Varoddbrua, the main span width was 125 metres.

The remaining six bridges are still in use.


----------



## javimix19

What is the safest and fastest way to go between Oslo and Bergen?

What is the most used system by the norways? (to go between Oslo and Bergen)

I read E-16 was improved in the last years but I don't know if the railway is best than the road. (or ferry)

Perhaps the most used way is by plane I don't know. This is only a curiosity,  I won't do this trip. I am in Basque Country, but perhaps in the future...


----------



## Heico-M

Many go by plane or by train, the Bergen railway (Bergensbanen) is very famous.

If you want to go by car, then the E16 normally is a good choice, currently, an important tunnel is closed (see above in this thread), and there is no bypass that deserves the name.

An alternative route is to take national road no. 7 and take the newly opened Hardanger bridge, making this trip ferry free, too. 

The point is, going from Oslo to Bergen means, that sooner or later, you have to cross the mountains.


----------



## Galro

Kråkerøybrua in Fredrikstad will be closed for all traffic after it was discovered that one of the locking bolts was damaged. 

http://www.bygg.no/2013/08/110929.0


----------



## ChrisZwolle

^^ Kind of convenient that the new Værstebrua was completed two years ago. Otherwise quite a large amount of people would have been unconnected from the rest of Norway.


----------



## Gsus

devo said:


> Oh yes, the traffic is actually calculated to about 70.000 vehicles in 2040. So by all means, the third lane is justified, but as a bus lane? No, thank you, there is no need for that.


There tunnel north of the bridges does'nt have more than two lanes in each directions. This means that the third lane will have to turn of at the end of the bridge. This could just make jams during rush-hour before the tunnel, as cars will have to changing lanes. There is also just two lanes in each direction further into Kristiansand.

The only thing is if there is a lot of traffic between the two intersections on each side of Varoddbrua. Then it could function as a continuous acceleration/retardation lane, but I think the buses will have more to win on it. There will also be a lot less buses that will merge to the E18 lanes before the tunnel, than the number of cars that will merge. That means less problems whit lane-changing during peak-hours.


----------



## ElviS77

javimix19 said:


> What is the safest and fastest way to go between Oslo and Bergen?
> 
> What is the most used system by the norways? (to go between Oslo and Bergen)
> 
> I read E-16 was improved in the last years but I don't know if the railway is best than the road. (or ferry)
> 
> Perhaps the most used way is by plane I don't know. This is only a curiosity,  I won't do this trip. I am in Basque Country, but perhaps in the future...


Safest, fastest, most commonly used way of travel: by plane. Oslo-Bergen (and Oslo-Trondheim) are among the busiest air routes in Europe. Bergensbanen (train) is nice, but still too slow to offer any real competition to air travel. By road you have at least five reasonable alternatives - E16, rv 7, rv 52, fv 50, E134. The E16 is gradually being improved and it's the least troublesome in winter, but it's also the longest. Rv 7 is the shortest and now ferry-free, but Hardangervidda is a major obstacle during the winter months. The E134 plus connections on the western side of the mountains could potentially be made the shortest and quickest, but that's not happening anytime soon, although plans for a new and seriously improved Haukeli mountain road is at a semi-advanced stage. 

The main issue is that none of these roads can get absolute priority, as all of them (with the exception of fv 50) are important local and regional east-west links whereas the amount of actual Oslo-Bergen traffic is fairly low. It is a somewhat similar situation between Oslo and Trondheim, but since there are only two reasonable options there (which both pick up a fair amount of regional traffic - the southern section of the E6 also carries Oslo-bound traffic from the north-western Sogn og Fjordane and Møre og Romsdal counties) both the rv 3 and the E6 are busier than all the east-west connections.


----------



## devo

Gsus said:


> There tunnel north of the bridges does'nt have more than two lanes in each directions. This means that the third lane will have to turn of at the end of the bridge. This could just make jams during rush-hour before the tunnel, as cars will have to changing lanes. There is also just two lanes in each direction further into Kristiansand.
> 
> The only thing is if there is a lot of traffic between the two intersections on each side of Varoddbrua. Then it could function as a continuous acceleration/retardation lane, but I think the buses will have more to win on it. There will also be a lot less buses that will merge to the E18 lanes before the tunnel, than the number of cars that will merge. That means less problems whit lane-changing during peak-hours.


Both tunnels should be widened to three lanes, the junction at Rona should be free-flow and the road network to Dvergsnes and Høvåg needs a re-think beyond the evolution of roundabouts. There would definitly be enough traffic to make the third lane function as a continuous acceleration/retardation lane, especially if it was continiued through the tunnel. Then, all traffic going to Hånes, Søm, Dvergsnes and Høvåg would use that lane. So almost all of East-Kristiansand. Except Sørlandsparken and everything north of Hånes (Rv 41).


----------



## Gsus

devo said:


> Both tunnels should be widened to three lanes, the junction at Rona should be free-flow and the road network to Dvergsnes and Høvåg needs a re-think beyond the evolution of roundabouts. There would definitly be enough traffic to make the third lane function as a continuous acceleration/retardation lane, especially if it was continiued through the tunnel. Then, all traffic going to Hånes, Søm, Dvergsnes and Høvåg would use that lane. So almost all of East-Kristiansand. Except Sørlandsparken and everything north of Hånes (Rv 41).


And the tunnels is exactly the problem, and theres no way they will be prioritized for expanding. That would make a complete traffic-chaos in the area, as the tunnels will have to be closed (even by taking one at the time) for a long time during expanding. The only possible alternative for expanding capacity through the mountain north of Varoddbrua as I see it, is by building a new tunnel with three-four lanes for one direction traffic, and use the existing tunnels as the other. And that makes a very different situation than what i planned with the new bridge.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Where will all this traffic growth come from? Are they planning to urbanize the area east of the tunnels?

By the way the tolls in Kristiansand will be reduced to 14 NOK outside rush hour.


----------



## devo

ChrisZwolle said:


> Where will all this traffic growth come from? Are they planning to urbanize the area east of the tunnels?
> (...).


Yes.

Lauvåsen is an ongoing project, Hamrevann is in the future, also another project close to Rona (Nottangen bridge) and the junction with E 18. Then there are more projects in the Dvergsnes area (where Aker Solutions and National Oilwell have large offices and workshops).

I also guess that commute from Lillesand and other areas will contribute to the growth. 

And regarding the business with closing the tunnels for widening... It's better to do it now than later, when the traffic will be even more ridiculous. Remember, it is only 4 years ago traffic was two lane from this point going eastbound. They could let some traffic run along the old E 18 outside of the tunnel, so I don't think it's completely ludacris. When done with one, they could have reversible three lanes in the other depending on rush hour traffic.

But all of this would be unnecessary if they just built a ring road from north of the zoo, just north of the airport and then down to follow the now proposed ring road from Narvika to Hellemyr. 

Time Will Show.


----------



## Ingenioren

9 km of new motorway is ready to start construction on Rv4 in Hadeland:










The road starts at the Lunner north municipal boundary and ends at the Fv34 intersection. Opening during 2016. This is the first part of Rv4 to be built as a full motorway. Another 4 km south to E16 junction is planned for motorway construction, but the rest of Rv4 will be upgraded with passing lanes - new intersections and barrier construction.

Parts of the new road can be seen in this animation:


----------



## Galro

Various alternatives for new e-18 bridge crossing the Eidanger fjord. Number 6 is currently considered to be most realistic one.










http://www.bygg.no/2013/08/111313.0

Location: https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Eida...idangerfjorden&t=h&hnear=Eidangerfjorden&z=13


----------



## ChrisZwolle

That will likely be a large suspension span, considering the length needed to span the fjord. Unless the fjord is shallow, which would allow the pylons to be further in the water.


----------



## Galro

I believe the fjord is about 100m deep.










https://docs.google.com/viewer?doce...en.no/filopplast/filer/2011-03-21 Beylich.pdf


----------



## Galro

Old short clip with driving in Norway.


----------



## Heico-M

Galro said:


> Old short clip with driving in Norway.


Love these old roads. From a tourist's point of view, it is almost a shame to see more and more of these roads disappear.

I remember going to Norway in 1982 when we crossed Hardangervidda on the Rv7 and suddenly found ourselves on the Måbødalen descent with a big mobile home. :nuts:


----------



## Galro

I wish they were better at keeping the old roads open while they bypassed it with new constructions. I.e. like they have done with Lærdalstunnelen and county road 243 rather than how it was done in Måbødalen.


----------



## Heico-M

Galro said:


> I wish they were better at keeping the old roads open while they bypassed it with new constructions. I.e. like they have done with Lærdalstunnelen and county road 243 rather than how it was done in Måbødalen.


You are absolutely right about this. Even if they kept it as a one-way-road (like they did with Stalheimskleiva).

But most of the time, there is obviously simply no space to keep both. At least, most of Måbødalens road is still there and you can walk it. The old road along Eidfjordvatnet is open for bicycles. That's a start. 

And I heard that Riksantikvaren has taken responsibility for keeping old roads and structures worth keeping.

I am very much interested in these old roads. Is there a thread on the SSC that deals with this?


----------



## Bannor

Heico-M said:


> Love these old roads. From a tourist's point of view, it is almost a shame to see more and more of these roads disappear.
> 
> I remember going to Norway in 1982 when we crossed Hardangervidda on the Rv7 and suddenly found ourselves on the Måbødalen descent with a big mobile home. :nuts:


Måbødalen is fine, but try Bergsdalen next time you come here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CszNuQKFyKE

Or even better, join in the race (running, rollerskiing or biking):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABc0Us2idUM

or Trollstigen:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ccuYifxwny0


----------



## Heico-M

Thanks Bannor, been to both.
My personal highlight was in fact Aursjøvegen. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gLv_kHJeE_I


----------



## suburbicide

The Riksvei 19 ferry connection Moss-Horten will be put out to tender again in 2016. There will allegedly be a requirement for 8 ferries vs. 5 today, which will require the construction of third ferry docks on either side of the fjord. Planning is already underway in Horten. The ferries currently depart every 15 minutes at peak times, so I assume they will increase to every 10 minutes.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Aren't they planning a fixed link in that area?


----------



## suburbicide

A fixed link is many years into the future, if it happens. They're currently working on a so-called "concept choice study" which will evalute principles for future Oslofjord crossings. It will be presented next year. They've made an English language video about the study (which obviously doesn't say much about future bridges and tunnels, just what the concept study entails).


----------



## IceCheese

ChrisZwolle said:


> Aren't they planning a fixed link in that area?


This is our Fehmarn-link. The fixed link is many years ahead, so it's not that weird they want to extend ferry tenders if the current runs out in 2016.


----------



## Galro

Innovation Norway have granted Statens Vegvesen money to finance a look at the feasibility of building the planned 1600m long bridge over Mjøsa in wood.










http://www.bygg.no/2013/08/111480.0


----------



## suburbicide

A few pictures of the recently opened Hardanger brigde and connecting tunnels:


by edlefjellanger http://bit.ly/1diAvD6 by visitnorway.com, on Flickr


Untitled by ricky.cheng, on Flickr


getting the blues by youpidou, on Flickr


----------



## Jakub Warszauer

suburbicide said:


> (...)


Where is that?

EDIT: Already done.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

T-Forbindelsen south of Haugesund will open to traffic on September 5. This is a 20 kilometer toll road project, including the 8.9 kilometer Karmøy Tunnel which has three branches and a roundabout at 130 meters below the ground.

http://www.vegvesen.no/Vegprosjekter/tforbindelsen


----------



## suburbicide

Recent pictures from the 670 m Tverland brigde in Bodø, part of the new riksvei 80 Løding-Vikan which will open later this year.


----------



## g.spinoza

ChrisZwolle said:


> T-Forbindelsen south of Haugesund will open to traffic on September 5. This is a 20 kilometer toll road project, including the 8.9 kilometer Karmøy Tunnel which has three branches and a roundabout at 130 meters below the ground.
> 
> http://www.vegvesen.no/Vegprosjekter/tforbindelsen


Has the tunnel been opened? Are there pictures?


----------



## Galro

^^ A few pictures of the roundabout at least:


----------



## suburbicide

Vid of T-forbindelsen:


----------



## Ingenioren

Strange that the passing lane ends inside the tunnel...


----------



## B. Peasant

Ingenioren said:


> Strange that the passing lane ends inside the tunnel...


You're pretty much done with the climbing at that point. The roundabout is only(!) 60m below sea level.


----------



## TrentSteele

Norway also likes building very expensive infrastructure with very low ROI in sparsely populated areas. Some of them may be impressive and fascinating, but when looked at through more realistic eyes they do not seem very prudent. The previous government(s) favored these kinds of projects over more "mundane" projects like motorways connecting the cities, often justifying them with arguments about preventing rural flight. This is fine, but it's not fine to do so at the expense of core infrastructure like cities and roads connecting cities. These projects were often done piece-meal which further raises the costs, resulting in less value for money.


----------



## Iregua

ChrisZwolle said:


> Is the Norwegian road budget really that low?
> 
> Let's compare a few countries.
> 
> Road budget (2013 or 2014):
> 
> * Germany: € 5.8 billion
> * Netherlands: € 2.7 billion
> * Norway: € 2.8 billion
> * Spain: € 2.2 billion
> 
> Per capita road budget:
> 
> * Norway: € 560
> * Netherlands: € 162
> * Germany: € 72
> * Spain: € 47


Those figures are only for the state-owned road network, right? The Spanish Autonomous Regions have their own roads, which are created and mantained via each Region's budget.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Many Spanish autonomous roads are actually funded by Fomento (national government), especially high-standard ones. 

My point was not to provide exact figures as a fact (I merely compared national budgets), but to start a discussion about the claim that Norway doesn't spend a lot of money on roads. Norway spends a whole lot of money on roads, but often not in the right places. The investment per capita in rural areas is staggering, while the investment per capita in metropolitan areas is low.


----------



## Galro

TrentSteele said:


> Norway also likes building very expensive infrastructure with very low ROI in sparsely populated areas. Some of them may be impressive and fascinating, but when looked at through more realistic eyes they do not seem very prudent. The previous government(s) favored these kinds of projects over more "mundane" projects like motorways connecting the cities, often justifying them with arguments about preventing rural flight. This is fine, but it's not fine to do so at the expense of core infrastructure like cities and roads connecting cities. These projects were often done piece-meal which further raises the costs, resulting in less value for money.


Have there ever been any attempts at looking into whether these infrastructure projects actually stops rural depopulation? My impression is that they usually just result in a nice bridge to drive over when they move away from these places, but it does little do change the reason for the depopulation in the first place (lack of opportunities in comparison with cities).


----------



## suburbicide

Galro said:


> Have there ever been any attempts at looking into whether these infrastructure projects actually stops rural depopulation?


NRK looked at the effect on population with 40 bridge and sub-sea tunnel projects constructed over the last 30 years, and the results were mixed. In Northern Norway, the population has mostly decreased on islands that received fixed mainland connections. 

For example, since The Mjøsund bridge was built in 1994, the population in Ibestad (Troms) has been reduced by one third.










And when the bridge connecting Sundøya in Helgeland to the mainland was completed in 2003, the population on the island was 129. It's since come down to 101.









In Southern Norway OTOH, population has often increased. Generally, islands that are within commuting distance to cities has seen population increases. 

http://www.nrk.no/okonomi/fraflytting-trass-i-bruforbindelser-1.10964923


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

*How I hate writing with the phone....*

In general I agree, although I believe the biggest cost driver in Norwegian road construction is the lack of long term planning rather than smaller local projects. However, regarding Trøndelag, the article you refer to is wrong, but not its statistics. The net trend for the four island connected to the mainland is a strong population growth. In fact, outside the Trondheim region, Hitra and Frøya have strongest growth in Trøndelag. This would probably not have been possible without the tunnels as the all-important salmon producers depend on them. Smaller projects are nowadays paid by the counties or boroughs, so they actually do not affect national road strategies directly. 

The new Trondheim E6 is a prime example of some of the problems with Norwegian road building. After years of construction, the traffic problems are only moved a km, in a year or two they will have to sign new contracts, and hamper the traffic once more for another km or two, unless the new government hold their promises and do things more efficiently. Let's at least hope the rest of the E6 will follow the standard and get 3 my hard shoulders (and hence a chance for 100+ speed limit)


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

*Chinese company to build Hålogalandsbrua*

A Chinese company, Sichuan Road and Bridge Group*, has won the steel contract of the Hålogaland bridge with a bid of 755 MNOK (~100 M€). The total price tag of the project, which also includes some tunnels and connecting roads, is more than 2 billion NOK. As far as I know, this is the first major road construction contract in Norway that goes to a Chinese company. The bridge crosses a fjord and shortens the E6 north of Narvik in Northern Norway. 
http://www.fremover.no/lokale_nyheter/article6938194.ece


----------



## ChrisZwolle

The Chinese are certainly capable of constructing large and advanced infrastructure. However, will they also be capable of operating in the Norwegian political and judicial environment? Experiences with Chinese construction in Poland have been negative, they had to withdraw from a large motorway construction contract. The Chinese thought they would be building in Africa-like circumstances politically. Right now the Chinese are aiming at construction projects in Romania and Serbia. We'll have to see how that goes.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

Let's hope they have done their homework. Their bid was only 30 MNOK lower than the second cheapest bid. To me, this whole project seems a bit marginal. Less than 20km is cut, and the traffic is limited. Hålogaland is an old name for Northern Norway btw, but essentially this is a local project, not a regional one.


----------



## Kjello0

54°26′S 3°24′E;108292939 said:


> To me, this whole project seems a bit marginal. Less than 20km is cut, and the traffic is limited. Hålogaland is an old name for Northern Norway btw, but essentially this is a local project, not a regional one.


Don't agree at all mate. Any project that shorten distances and travel times on E6 is of national importance. And the traffic is about 3000 AaDT. Twice the amount of some of the fjord crossings on E 39. And 50 % higher than for example Kvikne. I would hardly call a project on Rv 3 over Kvikne of local importance.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

I do not think the bridge is useless, but there are other places where 2.2 billions could be used in a better way today. I think that the project is mainly local because that is what the majority of the traffic is, in contrast to Kvikne. My point was merely that Hålogalandsbrua is a nice marketing trick, as most people of Northern Norway, both north, south and even west (Vesterålen and Lofoten) of Narvik use other roads to connect to the outside world. The E6 in this area is however important in connecting Bodø and Narvik to Tromsø (whatever that is worth), but more importantly connecting Narvik to Evenes airport. Ofotenbrua would have been a more proper name.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

*Scary......*

In the meantime on a different place along the E6 :
http://www.dagbladet.no/2013/10/26/nyheter/lastebil/kresj/frontrute/usikret_last/29992724/?www=1
Watch the first video 
Luckily no fatalities........


----------



## IceCheese

AADT of almost 20.000 on a national route, obviously calls for a tunnel of two lanes, no divider and 80 km/h speed limit :nuts:


----------



## Osamede

Money isnt the problem - its the culture. Norwegians, even in private situations, tend to see infrastructure building as an expense rather than as a long-term investment. 

So the idea of doing it, well, doing it right, last for a long time, we will all enjoy it, user comfort, etc, is not really the top of mind. Primary thought is get something done and run off. 

You see this even when private properly "grendelags" are owners the decision makers in similar situations. People have a hard time seeing this from the inside, but most foreigners in Norway catch on fairly quickly. I suspect it is some leftover from the Lutheran culture. Shouldn't enjoy yourself too much.


----------



## sotonsi

Osamede said:


> I suspect it is some leftover from the Lutheran culture. Shouldn't enjoy yourself too much.


Yet Luther himself had a brewery, so his mates came round every night to drink and chat and play skittles (which Luther codified the rules for). Luther also severely attacked the "I can't have the best" approach to live.

The idea of doing something flimsy and half-assed is a much more recent thing. Who cares if something doesn't last 100 years - you won't live to see that. Who cares if it isn't gold plated, its _my_ money you are spending.


----------



## Heico-M

Osamede said:


> M I suspect it is some leftover from the Lutheran culture. Shouldn't enjoy yourself too much.


No, it is Janteloven.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

*E6 Hålogaland Bridge*

Great video about the new Hålogaland Bridge near Narvik.

It's in English.


----------



## ElviS77

Heico-M said:


> No, it is Janteloven.


No, Norwegian infrastructure politics are far more complex (or simple, depending on point of view) than that. The main issues are directly linked to the development of Norway as a sovereign state. There's always been a strong rural influence on important structural aspects of the Norwegian democracy and even though the "centre" (i.e. national government, the Oslo region) has strengthened its position over the past century, rural Norway is still far more powerful than rural Sweden, for instance. 

This is certainly not only a negative, but in terms of developing a coherent national infrastructure, it's certainly a problem. Partly because there is a belief that infrastructure spending should benefit all parts of the country equally (certain politicians stated after the opening of Oslo Airport Gardermoen that similar investments now were due in their region...), but mostly because the regional and local governments hold actual power over national budgets. National roads (even E roads) were for most purposes county roads in terms of financing and development until the early 90s and local councils may still delay (or derail completely...) projects they find objectable...


----------



## Galro

New e-18 Mosseveien in Oslo:

















'

http://dittoslo.no/nordstrands-blad...d/slik-blir-den-nye-e-18-mosseveien-1.8136430

Today: https://maps.google.no/maps?q=Oslo&....616113,57.084961&oq=oslo&t=h&hnear=Oslo&z=17


----------



## Suburbanist

^^ I was in doubt whether that was a render or a miniature :lol:


----------



## Corvinus

OT: Norwegian forumers, where could I find the lyrics for this song? 
(Campingplassen - Henning Fries)


----------



## IceCheese

Corvinus said:


> OT: Norwegian forumers, where could I find the lyrics for this song?
> (Campingplassen - Henning Fries)


I don't know. Call the artist, if he's still alive?

Best I could get:



> Når du har parkert bilen på den gamle campingplassen,
> så kan du lave litt mat og sette på kaffevann.
> Og mens jeg spiser kan du fikse buksa,
> som jeg skal ha på når jeg skal ut på dans.
> Og vær så snill og husk og puss dem fine gamle støvler
> bring meg slipset og et lite lommespeil.
> 
> Når du har parkert bilen på den gamle campingplassen,
> da kan du si meg hvorfor du er sur og lei.
> Jeg lar deg alltid vaske bilen min om søndag
> for fritørking(?) kan være veldig bra i blant
> For deg som ellers aldri tenker på noe annet
> med marsipan og wienerbrød og boller hele da'n.
> Jeg har jo sagt "Kjerringa, må du se og ta deg sammen,
> og [something unintelligeble] seg med noen tusen gram.
> Nå må du tenke litt på det, og la meg sitte her i fred
> mens jeg holder selskap med en liten dram"
> 
> Ja, når du har parkert bilen på den gamle campingplassen,
> så kan du lave litt mat og sette på kaffevann.
> Og mens jeg spiser kan du fikse buksa mi,
> som jeg satt fast i en piggtråd her om da'n
> Og vær så snill og husk å skrive et lite brev til de der hjemme
> skriv om været, ikke glem og hils fra meg.
> 
> Når du har parkert bilen på den gamle campingplassen,
> da kan du si meg hvorfor du er sur og lei
> Når du har parkert bilen på den gamle campingplassen,
> da kan du si meg hvorfor du er sur og lei
> da kan du si meg hvorfor du er sur og lei


----------



## Galro

[something unintelligeble] = forte deg å pynte deg


----------



## ChrisZwolle

*Rv. 80 Fauske - Bodø*

The Tverland Bridge opens to traffic today.

It's a concrete cantilever bridge.

specs;

* total length: 670 m
* main span: 180 m
* side spans: 153 m
* height: 20 m
* width: 23.5 m
* lanes: 2x2 + bicycle/footpath
* construction: early 2011 - late 2013 (2.5 years)
* cost: 510 million NOK
* tolls: yes, 40% of construction cost must be recovered through tolls.


----------



## Fargo Wolf

IceCheese said:


> I don't know. Call the artist, if he's still alive?
> 
> Best I could get:


Ran it through Google Translate:

From Norwegian:

Once you have parked your car at the old campsite ,
you can lower some food and put on the coffee water.
And while I'm eating you can fix your pants ,
I will wear when I go out on the dance .
And please remember to render them fine old boots
bring my tie and a small pocket mirror .

Once you have parked your car at the old campsite ,
then can you tell me why you 're upset and tired .
I allow you to always wash my car on Sunday
for fritørking (? ) can be very good in a while
For those who would otherwise never think of anything else
with marzipan and pastries and buns whole da'n .
I have said " bitch , look and take you along ,
and [something unintelligeble ] with a thousand grams.
Now you have to think it over and let me sit here in peace
while keeping the company of a little nip "

Yes , once you have parked your car at the old campsite ,
you can lower some food and put on the coffee water.
And while I'm eating you can fix my pants ,
I was stuck in a barbed wire here on da'n
And please remember to write a note to those at home
write about the weather, do not forget to say hello from me .

Once you have parked your car at the old campsite ,
then can you tell me why you 're upset and tired
Once you have parked your car at the old campsite ,
then can you tell me why you 're upset and tired
then can you tell me why you 're upset and tired

It also offered a Danish translation:

Once you have parked the car on the old campingplassen ,
then you can make litt mat and sette on kaffevann .
And while I eat you can fix buksa ,
I must ha when I ut the dance .
And then be snill and remember and puss those fine old boots
generating meg tie and a lite lommespeil .

Once you have parked the car on the old campingplassen ,
when you si meg why you're mad and lei.
I lar deg alltid wash the car my on Sunday
for fritørking (?) can be veldig bra in amongst
For deg otherwise Nev. am thinking of noe other things
with marsipan and pastries and muffins throughout da'n .
I told " Kjerringa , you must see and ta deg together
and [ something unintelligeble ] segment with Noen thousand grams.
Well , do Tenke litt on it and la meg sit here in peace
while I hold selskap with a liten dram "

Yes, once you have parked the car on the old campingplassen ,
then you can make litt mat and sette on kaffevann .
And while I eat you can fix buksa mi ,
I satt stuck in a piggtråd here on da'n
And then be snill and remember å write a letter to the lite at home
write about was not forgetfulness and greetings from meg .

Once you have parked the car on the old campingplassen ,
when you si meg why you're mad and lei
Once you have parked the car on the old campingplassen ,
when you si meg why you're mad and lei
when you si meg why you're mad and lei


----------



## Fargo Wolf

Galro said:


> [something unintelligeble] = forte deg å pynte deg


Google Translate detects it as Norwegian:

Hurry to dress up


----------



## Ingenioren

Video from Tverlandsbrua bridge:
http://www.an.no/video/article6952684.ece


----------



## suburbicide

The expanded E8 through Lavangsdalen outside Tromsø opened yesterday. A 9.6 km section of the road now has a median devider. It's a 1+1 road with passing lanes in some spots (about half is 2+1 or 2+2).


----------



## Galro

A suggestion to build a bridge crossing the Oslo fjord from the local municipalities in the region.

http://www.nrk.no/buskerud/dette-er-broen-3-1.11359601

Just click on the play button in the lower left corner to view the video.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

That would be one of the largest suspension bridges in the world, with a circa 1500 m+ main span and over 1.8 km total length over water.

However, suspension bridges are rarely used for railroads because they are too light to support heavy (freight) trains. But the symphony bridge could be a solution, which also has cable stays to support a heavier main span. A symphony bridge has been proposed to cross the Storfjord. One large symphony bridge is currently under construction in Istanbul, which is the first large bridge of this type ever built. The Brooklyn Bridge also has elements of a symphony bridge.


----------



## Fargo Wolf

suburbicide said:


>


What is the logic of putting a barrier like that down the middle of the road? I can understand it, if there is a major issue with head on collisions, but this pic seems to show a lower speed section of road that is lightly traveled.:dunno:


----------



## Ingenioren

Yes aadt is only 4000, but there was a really bad accident that pushed this project. What's more strange is that this road had 90km/h limit 2 years ago, but the widened road will be signed 80km/h. 1km passing sections every 3km and short stop-pockets every 0,5km.


----------



## suburbicide

Fargo Wolf said:


> What is the logic of putting a barrier like that down the middle of the road? I can understand it, if there is a major issue with head on collisions, but this pic seems to show a lower speed section of road that is lightly traveled.:dunno:


This road had a lot of head on collisions. There was one in particular where 5 people died, that influenced the decision to rebuild the road with a barrier. Speed limit is 80 km/h, which is standard in Norway for non-motorway rural roads.


----------



## Agent 006

suburbicide said:


> This road had a lot of head on collisions. There was one in particular where 5 people died, that influenced the decision to rebuild the road with a barrier. Speed limit is 80 km/h, which is standard in Norway for non-motorway rural roads.


2+1 roads (passing sections every 3 km) are normally signed 90 km/h in Norway. So why only 80 km/h here? :nuts:


----------



## Galro

Agent 006 said:


> 2+1 roads (passing sections every 3 km) are normally signed 90 km/h in Norway. So why only 80 km/h here? :nuts:


I guess it is considered to be a accident-prone spot and therefore gets a reduced speed limit.


----------



## Ingenioren

E18 Mastemyr - Vinterbro is another 2+1 road with 80 km/h speed limit.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Aerial video of the Riksvei 7 cutoff road.


----------



## Ingenioren

Photo of new and old E6 in Melhus, Sør-Trøndelag:


----------



## RV

Agent 006 said:


> 2+1 roads (passing sections every 3 km) are normally signed 90 km/h in Norway. So why only 80 km/h here? :nuts:


2+1-roads are crap and money-wasting.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Better 2+1 than 2x1 as shown in the E6 photo above.


----------



## Ingenioren

Should cross the Drammenfjord in Svelvik instead , there's a riduclously shirt ferry crossing there, but that's a local project. No doubt they will chose the southern one as is better from a national point of view


----------



## B. Peasant

suburbicide said:


> The three contenders are (1) bridge from Rødtangen (Hurum) to south of Holmestrand (2) tunnel from south of Moss to south of Horten, or (3) bridge in the same location as (2).
> 
> I don't quite understand the first alternative, as it doesn't actually cross the Oslo Fjord. :dunno:


It utilizes the existing Oslofjord tunnel for the crossing.


----------



## suburbicide

Ingenioren said:


> Should cross the Drammenfjord in Svelvik instead , there's a riduclously shirt ferry crossing there, but that's a local project. No doubt they will chose the southern one as is better from a national point of view


It does seem to be the far better choice. I'm hoping for a bridge. Bridges are safer and more reliable (less closures) and also cooler.


----------



## Galro

^^ I would imagine that a bridge will meet massive opposition from the people of Moss and Horten who will lose their sea view. Sadly.


----------



## Ingenioren

Valslags tunnel (2.6km) opened on Fv714 "The Salmon road":










Part of a larger project to upgrade this route:







$$$
http://www.vegvesen.no/Fylkesveg/fv714laksevegen

Video from the opening:
http://www.adressa.no/tv/?id=25130&***********&style=null


----------



## Ingenioren

A photo from the still unused E18 bypass of Mysen, it's been complete since october, but since the only access-road is the narrow Fv123 Vegvesenet decided to postpone opening untill summer when the other half of the section is finished. It has a status of motortraffikkvei and is 4-lane with 90km/h speed limit.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

The contracts are also signed for 6.3 km of 2x2 E18 between Retvet and Knapstad (west of the photo above this post). The cost is 836 million NOK / € 100 million. It will be completed in late 2016.


----------



## IceCheese

Emergency lane/shoulders too expensive, but double-sided road lightings apparantly a must. Weird priorities...


----------



## Fargo Wolf

metasmurf said:


> Narrow bridge on E6 in Nord-Trøndelag. Only in Norway :lol:
> 
> Edit: Apparently a new bridge has been built to replace this one, which opened 19th of December. Read about it here
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Location: http://goo.gl/maps/0mOQh


What was wrong with the old bridge, aside from the fact it was a one lane structure.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

E6 is the single most important road to northern Norway, so it carries some truck traffic. 

The old truss bridge was built in 1938.


----------



## J N Winkler

Statens Vegvesen has put out to tender a major contract for the western part of the E16 relocation in the vicinity of Filefjell (formal name in Norwegian: "E16 Varpe bru-Smedalsosen. Veg-, bru- og tunnelentreprise"). As occasionally happens with major contracts, access data for the construction documentation is included in the tender notice (site https://joint2.prosjekthotell.com/eRoom/KonkurransegrunnlagVegvesenRegionVest/E16VarpebruSmedalsosen with username [email protected] and password Suletind1793). The works include 14 km of new road and a new tunnel almost 6 km long, running underneath the ridge that overlooks the present E16 north of Otrøvatnet. E16 in this area is narrow, with dashed shoulder stripes and no centerline; its replacement will have the standard _riksveg_ cross-section with full-width lanes and centerline, and is supposed to be more winter-proof.

Vegvesen page for the overall E16 Filefjell project (in Norwegian):

http://www.vegvesen.no/Vegprosjekter/e16filefjell

Vegvesen page for the Varpe bru-Smedalsosen section (in Norwegian):

http://www.vegvesen.no/Europaveg/e16varpesmedalsosen

Vegvesen press release concerning this tender advertisement (in Norwegian):

http://www.vegvesen.no/Europaveg/e1...or+Filefjells-kontrakt+ut+på+anbod.544721.cms


----------



## Galro

The company that runs the toll booths in Alterhavstunnelen have asked for a 6 million nok compensation from the state due to the fees they lose out on when electric cars gets a free pass through the toll system.

http://www.bygg.no/article/1179846


----------



## Agent 006

Detailed regulation of E18 Retvet - Vinterbro starts now. Luckily the 16 km new motorway-stretch will get H9-standard instead of H8-standard. This means emergency lanes of 3 m, and a total width of 23-25 m (H8 = 1,5 m and 20 m). :banana:

Link to the "planprogram" (in Norwegian only): 
http://www.vegvesen.no/_attachment/571775/binary/918810?fast_title=Planprogram+E18+Retvet+-+Vinterbro.pdf


----------



## definitivo

Agent 006 said:


> Detailed regulation of E18 Retvet - Vinterbro starts now. Luckily the 16 km new motorway-stretch will get H9-standard instead of H8-standard. This means emergency lanes of 3 m, and a total width of 23-25 m (H8 = 1,5 m and 20 m). :banana:
> 
> Link to the "planprogram" (in Norwegian only):
> http://www.vegvesen.no/_attachment/571775/binary/918810?fast_title=Planprogram+E18+Retvet+-+Vinterbro.pdf



...:banana:
...do you have any info about 7km Retvet - Knapstad, and E18 Kolabann S(weden) border...? Tnx


----------



## suburbicide

Turns out the alternatives for Oslofjord crossings reported earlier were not accurate. Here they are straight from the horse' mouth:









http://www.vegvesen.no/Om+Statens+vegvesen/Media/Siste+nyheter/Vis?key=572073

Three concepts are being evaluated:

1. Second tube added to current Oslofjord tunnel _or_ new bridge in the same area. The Moss-Horten ferry remains.

2. Second tube added to current Oslofjord tunnel _or_ new bridge in the same area, _and_ new fixed link Moss-Horten (bridge or tunnel). 

3. New connection Vestby-Hurum-Holmestrand including bridges across the Oslofjord and Drammenfjord. The current Oslofjord tunnel is closed, as is the ferry connection


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Bridge across the Brandangersund in Sogn og Fjordane. It opened in 2010. It's in a remote area along the coast. The main span is 220 meters long. It's the longest network arch bridge in Norway.


----------



## Agent 006

definitivo said:


> ...:banana:
> ...do you have any info about 7km Retvet - Knapstad, and E18 Kolabann S(weden) border...? Tnx


Yes 


*E18 RETVET - KNAPSTAD *

Length: 6,2 km 
Standard: Wide variant of H8-motorway (1,5+3,5+3,5+1 +3,5 + 1,0+3,5+3,5+1,5 =22,5 m)
Speed limit: 100 km/h or higher 
Start of construction: This winther 
Opening: 2016










Project: http://www.vegvesen.no/Vegprosjekter/e18ostfold/Delprosjekter/Knapstad-Retvet


*E18 ØRJE - RIKSGRENSEN (SWEDISH BORDER)*

Length: 6,4 km 
Standard: H5 "motortrafikkveg" (1+1/2+1 carrigeway with a median seperating the directions of traffic; 12,5 m if 2 lanes, and ca. 15 m if 3 lanes)
Speed limit: Mostly 90 km/h
Start of construction: This year or later
Opening: 2016 or later










Project: http://www.vegvesen.no/Vegprosjekter/e18ostfold/Delprosjekter/Riksgrensen-%C3%98rje


*E18 RETVET - VINTERBRO*

Length: 16 km 
Standard: H9-motorway (emergency lanes of 3 m, and a total width of 23-25 m; 3,0+3,5+3,5+0,5 +min. 2 + 0,5+3,5+3,5+3,0 =min. 23 m)
Speed limit: 100 km/h or higher
Start of construction: 2018 or later (detailed regulation starts now)
Opening: ?



















Project: http://www.vegvesen.no/Vegprosjekter/e18ostfold/Delprosjekter/Retvet-Vinterbro

"Planprogram": http://www.vegvesen.no/_attachment/571775/binary/918810?fast_title=Planprogram+E18+Retvet+-+Vinterbro.pdf


----------



## Heico-M

ChrisZwolle said:


> Bridge across the Brandangersund in Sogn og Fjordane. It opened in 2010. It's in a remote area along the coast. The main span is 220 meters long. It's the longest network arch bridge in Norway.


Appears even to be a single track bridge? What AADT may they have? 5?


----------



## ChrisZwolle

The bridge is only 5 meters wide, so basically one wide lane indeed. 

The pre-construction traffic volume was 128 vehicles per day. The 20-year (that would be 2030) volume is estimated at 270 vehicles per day.

Construction cost was 105 million NOK / € 12.5 million.


----------



## cinxxx

2 normal cars should still fit though, right? 
Strange to build such narrow new bridges though...


----------



## devo

We have a tradition to do it like this in Norway. Tell the politicians that no other developed country does it like this, you'll get the same answer. Tradition. Slow and painful.


----------



## Heico-M

Ingenioren said:


> Tendering starts for a 1.5 long tunnel and 1km widening of Fv7 alongside Hardangerfjord - to replace this piece of road:
> http://www.tu.no/vareveger/nyheter/2014/02/10/ny-rassikringstunnel-i-vest


From a tourist's point of view, this is really a shame!


----------



## suburbicide

Heico-M said:


> From a tourist's point of view, this is really a shame!


The old road will remain, but it will be closed to through traffic in winter.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

*E18 Larvik*

Contracts have been signed to construct a motorway around Larvik. It's part of the E18 upgrade. The 7 kilometer segment runs from Bommestad to Sky and is the Larvik bypass. Swedish construction company Skanska won the tender for the new route. The Farris Bridge in Larvik was contracted separately to Bilfinger about 3 months ago. 

Farris Bridge:


----------



## MattiG

Heico-M said:


> From a tourist's point of view, this is really a shame!


I do not believe this is the number one touristic route in Norway, due to the high traffic volumes. Scenic yes, but unpleasant. The situation might have changed since the tunnel bypassing the Skjervet hairpins on Rv13 got complete. The route Rv13/E16 over Voss might be more attractive to the heavy vehicles than Fv7.


----------



## Heico-M

MattiG said:


> I do not believe this is the number one touristic route in Norway, due to the high traffic volumes. Scenic yes, but unpleasant. The situation might have changed since the tunnel bypassing the Skjervet hairpins on Rv13 got complete. The route Rv13/E16 over Voss might be more attractive to the heavy vehicles than Fv7.


Heavy vehicles choose RV13/E16 because it is wider and more comfortable. In old days, when Granvinstunnelen did not exist and today's E16 between Dale and Bergen was even worse than the road on the picture, at that time did the trucks use Fv7. I drove Fv 7 several times, admittedly in summer, and I never met any trucks there. On the downside, it has been packed with toll stations all along.


----------



## suburbicide

MattiG said:


> I do not believe this is the number one touristic route in Norway, due to the high traffic volumes. Scenic yes, but unpleasant. The situation might have changed since the tunnel bypassing the Skjervet hairpins on Rv13 got complete. The route Rv13/E16 over Voss might be more attractive to the heavy vehicles than Fv7.


It's probably not number one, but it is part of one of 18 designated "National Tourist Routes".










http://www.nasjonaleturistveger.no/en


----------



## Heico-M

suburbicide said:


> It's probably not number one, but it is part of one of 18 designated "National Tourist Routes".
> 
> http://www.nasjonaleturistveger.no/en


And see what pic they have on their site:
http://www.nasjonaleturistveger.no/en/hardanger#img5


----------



## MichiH

ChrisZwolle said:


> Contracts have been signed to construct a motorway around Larvik. It's part of the E18 upgrade. The 7 kilometer segment runs from Bommestad to Sky and is the Larvik bypass. Swedish construction company Skanska won the tender for the new route. The Farris Bridge in Larvik was contracted separately to Bilfinger about 3 months ago.


I thought the bypass is already u/c since fall 2013, isn't it? (source)
Have the works already been actuated?



Agent 006 said:


> E39 The Eiganes tunnel (Stavanger): 4,5 km (feb. 2014 - 2019)


Is it already u/c?


----------



## Stafangr

> E39 The Eiganes tunnel (Stavanger): 4,5 km (feb. 2014 - 2019)
> Is it already u/c?


They will start construction of the Eiganes tunnel this spring. They've started construction of the Ryfast tunnel at Solbakk and Hundvåg.

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1560474&page=2


----------



## ChrisZwolle

MichiH said:


> I thought the bypass is already u/c since fall 2013, isn't it? (source)
> Have the works already been actuated?


As far as I know construction on the Farrisbrua began earlier than the rest of the project (it was a separate contract).


----------



## ChrisZwolle

*Fv. 714 Dolmsund Bridge*

Construction of the Dolmsund Bridge between Dolmøya and Hitra Islands, west of Trondheim. It will open in 2015. The main span is 190 meters. This is a fairly long main span for this bridge type (the longest in the world has a main span of 260 meters, the Gateway Bridge in Brisbane).


----------



## g.spinoza

Which kind of bridge is this?


----------



## ChrisZwolle

A concrete bridge using the cantilever principle with segments, also called a segmental bridge though it also looks like a concrete box girder bridge.

There are very few main spans over 200 meters with this bridge type. Longer spans are usually built as arch, cable-stayed of suspension bridge. Only steel truss cantilever bridge tend to be longer (up to 350 m) but they are rare in Europe (very common in North America though).


----------



## Galro

The new Hardanger bridge gets less traffic than expected half a year after the opening. Anticipated adt was 1.950 but the real one ended up being 733.

http://www.nrk.no/hordaland/dropper-broen-nar-vidda-er-stengt-1.11567086


----------



## ChrisZwolle

It got 733 vehicles in January. That is not a representative month at all, in fact January often carries the lowest monthly volume in a year. The unreliablity of the Hardangervidda crossing during the winter may add to that. 

Traffic on Norwegian roads, especially farther from the urban centers, fluctuates considerably during the year, the June-July ADT could be 200 or 250% of that in January or February. 

I think it's too soon to jump to conclusions, especially if it was based on a single month.

This chart shows the 2013 volume increased significantly after the bridge opened:


----------



## Mirror's Edge

OMG Norway, all these big bridges/tunnels for a few hundred or maybe a few thousand cars a day, much of the traffic is of course returning cars, so some of these monster projects might actually be used by a little as 300-500 ppl a day?


----------



## Sunfuns

You've got to somehow spend your oil wealth, right?


----------



## TrentSteele

It's not like they've run out of sensible infrastructure projects to spend the money on and are doing these just for fun..


----------



## MattiG

Galro said:


> The new Hardanger bridge gets less traffic than expected half a year after the opening. Anticipated adt was 1.950 but the real one ended up being 733.
> 
> http://www.nrk.no/hordaland/dropper-broen-nar-vidda-er-stengt-1.11567086


Norwegians had a national road conference in Bergen two weeks ago. One of the key topics was the discussion of options to build a decent road connection between Oslo and Bergen. Currently, there are four main alternatives (E16 over Filefjell, E16/52 over Hemsedal, 7 over Hardangervidda and 7/13/E134 over Haukeli). The distance as the crow flies between the cities is 304 km. The routes are 456 to 519 km in length, windy, climbing up to 1000+ metres, narrow and lousy. The driving time is 7+ hours, which was presented as a bad achievement compared to the 4+ hours driving time Stockholm-Gothenburg (440 km).

There are four presentations available to discuss the aspects of three options (north, middle and south):

http://www.veikonferansen.no/media/...den_sikre_vinterveien_mellom_ost_og_vest.pptx
http://www.veikonferansen.no/media/2014.02.10_K_A_Gurigard_Midtre_akse_Rv_7_u_film.pptx
http://www.veikonferansen.no/media/2014.02.10_Bjornland_E_134.pptx
http://www.veikonferansen.no/media/OFV_10.02.2014_-_E134_Haukelivegen.pptx

The first presentation more or less advertises the current route over E16. The remaining ones take a more professional approach. The third presentation shows rather detailed ideas, like building a *second bridge over Hardangerfjorden* (having a span of 1700 meters).

The presentations are in Norwegian. I am sorry about that.


----------



## RV

When was the first motorway/or motorway-type (2 lanes each direction) built?


----------



## ChrisZwolle

E6 northeast of Oslo is often mentioned as the first motorway in Norway. It opened in 1964.

However some parts of Ring 3 are slightly older, for example a segment in Oslo-Ulven opened in 1962.


----------



## :jax:

g.spinoza said:


> It's just to avoid the ramps... the cycle bridge would have been too steep to overcome them.


If I were a pedestrian living there there is absolute no chance I would be using it, I'd rather take my chances with the traffic. Pedestrians do straight lines, they don't do detours. Bicyclists may take some, but that one is too ridiculous. 

This is a bicycle path for the bureaucracy ("In this project we added 1 km of bicycle paths").


----------



## ChrisZwolle

It's a luxury there is any facility for pedestrians or cyclists anyway. It doesn't go anywhere to the right, just some kind of mining operation and one or two scrap yards.


----------



## Kjello0

ChrisZwolle said:


> E6 northeast of Oslo is often mentioned as the first motorway in Norway. It opened in 1964.
> 
> However some parts of Ring 3 are slightly older, for example a segment in Oslo-Ulven opened in 1962.


Ring 3 had both pedestrian crossings and at grade intersection at that time. The longest stretch that was motorway like was about 1 km long.

There are actually four different stretches that has been mentioned as "Norway's first motorway".

A 1,8 km stretch around Asker sentrum west of Oslo was mentioned as Norways first motorway in VG 1962.
The 5,5 km stretch from Hvam to Berger east of Oslo was then called Norway's first motorway in VG 1964.
In 2000, E18 Lierbakkene was preserved with the reason of being the first motorway in Norway. However, a search on Lierbakkene suggest that was first built in 1965. As VG in 1965 mention that the rebuilding of Lierbakkene has received money.

Then, an interview in January 2014 with Gunnar Tveit, project manager of E 18 through Asker and Bærum, claims that the first motorway was a section opened in 1961 between "Oslo West" and Blommenholm in Bærum. However, an article in 1977 claims that E 18 between Sandvika and Oslo is not of full motorway standard. Which then would include the mentioned stretch. As far as I know, the official motorway still ends at Blommenholm towards Oslo.

So I guess the honour stands between the Asker section, and the Hvam - Berger section. However, I'm quite sure Hvam - Berger was the first motorway to have the same standard as continental motorways. Something quite a lot of Norwegian motorways don't have today. VG also write "the first real motorway". And "built by international standards". It also specifically mentions a total road width of 26 meters. Including a 6 meter central field. And designed for speeds of 100-120 km/h. That's not the case of the Asker section.


----------



## Spearman

NRK with some articles about the highway construction going on right now. Both are in Norwegian, but the second one has a 10 min video (which I hope is available outside Norway) where they fly over the E18 Mjøsa construction site.

Largest road construction since the railway was built.
A different town

(oh, if someone knows how to embed those NRK vids on here, please let me know)


----------



## devo

MichiH said:


> (...)
> 
> There is a roundabout in Hundsvag so this should not be called motorway-like, should it?


Rv. 13 will be signed (according to 3D animations) as _Motortrafikkvei_, at least until the roundabout in Hundvåg. The next tunnel, _Ryfylke tunnel_, will probably also be signed similarly, to avoid slow moving traffic and dangerous situations in this long tunnel. Pedestrians and bicycles will definitely be prohibited.


----------



## Gsus

Spearman said:


> NRK with some articles about the highway construction going on right now. Both are in Norwegian, but the second one has a 10 min video (which I hope is available outside Norway) where they fly over the E18 Mjøsa construction site.
> 
> Largest road construction since the railway was built.
> A different town
> 
> (oh, if someone knows how to embed those NRK vids on here, please let me know)


Click on the icons on the map for each project in the first article, and you´ll see theres a flyover-video for each of the project.

The articles and videos is by the local NRK-branch for the counties of Hedmark and Oppland, and covers the currenty largest road-projects in the inland-counties.

A little bit about each project:

E16 Slomarka-Kongsvinger: 16,5km of four-lane expressway (16,5m wide). Construction started in 2011, and the new road will open this fall. The project is divided in three contracts, where Veidekke has two of the contracts, while Skanska has the long bridge (and connecting roads) near the end of the video.

E6 Minnesund-Labbdalen: 21km motorway (21m wide). Construction started in late 2011, and is scheduled to open in november this year (except for the longest tunnel, which will open during the spring of 2015). This project is also divided into three contracts, where Hæhre has both the northern and southern contract, and a partnership between Veidekke and german contractor Hochtief has the middle. The southern part was originally being buit by Alpine Bau, but since they went bankrupt, a new competition for the rest of the work was made (thus the delay on the longest tunnel), which Hæhre won. The project also include the expanding to double track and straitening (for 200km/h) of Dovrebanen on the same section.

E6 Frya-Sjoa: 34km expressway (two lanes and additionally passing lanes on one or two sides), 13,5/15,5/17,5m wide (two single bore tunnels). Divided into two contracts where the AF-group is building the southern part, and swiss contractor Implenia is building the northern part together with mid-sized norwegian contractor KA Aurstad. Construction started last summer, and the new road is scheduled to open in late 2016.

Rv. 4 Lunner-Jaren (9,5km) and Lygna sør (3,5km): Four laned motorway (20m wide) from Lunner to Jaren built by NCC commenced last fall, and is due to open during the fall of 2016. Lygna sør is basically a stretching of the existing passing lane further up the hills to Lygna, but there will also be a 1km passing lane downhill, and a steel-centralguradrail. Road with is 14,5m where theres just a passing lane uphill, and 16,5m with passing lane both ways.

E16 Fønhus-Bagn: 13km of new two-lane highway (8,5m wide). Two contracts with "Arbeidsfellesskapet Dokken go Engene" (partnership between two smaller contractors) having Fønhus-Dølveseter, and Isachsen entrepreneur has Dølveseter-Bagn.

Other large project in Hedmark and Oppland worth mentioning is E16 over Filefjell (mountain pass between east and west) in Oppland buit by Hæhre, where 20km i being rebuilt with 8,5 meter standard, and partly tunneled. Construction commenced earlier this year, and i due to open in 2017. 6km of new road is also under construction on Rv. 3 north of Elverum, as a 10m wide road with a central-guardrail. This section will open later this year.

Several projects is due to start during the next 3-5 years too, but very few of them has a length of more than 20km.

So a lot (at least by norwegian standard) is happening these days. The total cost of 15,8 billon NOK equals to 2 billion EUR. Still tho, there´s a far way to go before the main roads through Hedmark and Oppland is of consistently good standard


----------



## RV

So just like in Finland (then called "Eastern motorway), which's construction started in 1950, was opened from eastern city center of Helsinki to Herttoniemi in 1957. The first "real" motorway's construction (Turku motorway) was started in 1956 (the same year as the first motorway in Britain) and because of the policies on work back then was made mostly with shovels and buckets and was ready only in 1962.


----------



## Kjello0

The new government has stopped the previous government's madness. The new E39 between Stavanger and Kristiansand will be planed as a motorway. And not the stupid plans of building it as 2/3 lane expressway. Hopefully they'll make the same decision for the Trondheim - Steinkjer project.

Also, hopefully they'll open up for changing the route from Sandnes to Flekkefjord, building a new road further out on the coast, rather than the inland route the current E39 follows.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

I noticed Statens Vegvesen barely dared to talk of a motorvei in their press releases. It's mostly "firefeltsveg" (four-lane road).


----------



## Gsus

ChrisZwolle said:


> I noticed Statens Vegvesen barely dared to talk of a motorvei in their press releases. It's mostly "firefeltsveg" (four-lane road).


Some of the four-lane roads planned or being built in Norway does not meet the standards of full motorway. Many of the ones signed motorway is probably narrower than what would be signed motorway i many other countries (width of the shoulder). But "four-lane road" is in many ways a more precise term in Norway when talking of a motorway (tho a four-lane road can be a lot of things). That´s because we had a lot (and still has some hundreds of kilometers) of two-lane road that went under the name "Motorvei kl. B", i.e. motorway class B well into the 2000´s, which had the expressway-sign. Still many calls these roads for motorway.

Also, the words "motorway" and "four-lane road" is two words that scares the heck out of some people here in Norway. Even people working in the road administration does´nt like that roads with more than two lanes and 80km/h is built. And some environmentalist seems to think that the whole world will be set ablaze by all the exhaust that will be generated if we build 10km of motorway in Norway.


----------



## MichiH

Gsus said:


> E16 Slomarka-Kongsvinger: 16,5km of four-lane expressway (16,5m wide). Construction started in 2011, and the new road will open this fall. The project is divided in three contracts, where Veidekke has two of the contracts, while Skanska has the long bridge (and connecting roads) near the end of the video.


16,5m only? I guess it will feature only one carriageway with four lanes, won't it? No "real" expressway with two carriageways.



Gsus said:


> E6 Minnesund-Labbdalen: 21km motorway (21m wide). Construction started in late 2011, and is scheduled to open in november this year (except for the longest tunnel, which will open during the spring of 2015).


Do you expect a partial opening w/o the tunnel in November? Which part contains the tunnel?


----------



## Gsus

MichiH said:


> 16,5m only? I guess it will feature only one carriageway with four lanes, won't it? No "real" expressway with two carriageways.


Thats correct! Only a single carriageway with a steel guardrail dividing the central-lanes. 

http://g.api.no/obscura/API/image/r...1193157/archive/03549/3840663003_3549131a.jpg 

Here´s a picture of finished section on the same road further east. Note that the road in the picture has a cross section of 16m, while the one under construction is 16,5m, where they´ve widened the median a half meter, due to the feeling of being very close to the barrier, which many truckers experience while driving in the passing lane.



MichiH said:


> Do you expect a partial opening w/o the tunnel in November? Which part contains the tunnel?


Everything except for the 2,3km Korslund tunnel will open according to the original plan in november, while the tunnel and short sections near both end of the tunnel will open during spring next year. 

I can also add that the railway won´t open until the spring/summer of 2015. This is according to the originally plan, as tunnel- and blasted masses from the road (and rail tunnels) is used to build the railways substructure, which is for a large part built out in the lake Mjøsa.


----------



## devo

Let's all take a moment and remind ourselves why we have this biblically ridiculous 16m four lane standard here in Norway: So that we save all the fertile soil the road would otherwise occupy. 

First part of E 16 Kløfta - Nybakk was 10 km long. Let's just say every part of this road was built on fertile land. That gives us 0,16 km2. Now, if the road was 23 m wide, that would have occupied 0,23 km2.
So, the difference is 0,07 km2. If the road was built to proper standards, we would lose a whopping 0,00069 percent of the total fertile land in Norway (appr. 10 068 km2). So hurray to the conclusion that this saves fertile land.

Then, the road obviously doesn't stop at the verge. In total, we dont save nada. It's ridiculous. What happens when the road has to be widened to comply with the standards in the future?

Stuff like this is pseudo-politics and drives me insane.


----------



## MichiH

Gsus said:


> Thats correct! Only a single carriageway with a steel guardrail dividing the central-lanes.


Thanks. Will the new section be grade-separted and access-controlled?



Gsus said:


> Everything except for the 2,3km Korslund tunnel


Where is it located?


----------



## Gsus

MichiH said:


> Thanks. Will the new section be grade-separted and access-controlled?


There will be two grade-separated intersections and full access-controll from the eastern start and until the road enters Kongsvinger. Inside Kongsvinger there will be two roundabouts, one at the end of the new road, and one some half a kilometer to the east.

When the construction is done between Nybakk and Slomarka (probably eary 2020´s), the plan is that the whole road is to be access-controlled and grade free. Earlier plans included a roundabout at Skarnes, where the road meets Rv. 24, but this now changed to a grade separated intersection 



MichiH said:


> Where is it located?


https://www.google.com/maps/place/K...2!3m1!1s0x46418c8efb5802cb:0x10575fca3919335e


----------



## Gsus

devo said:


> Let's all take a moment and remind ourselves why we have this biblically ridiculous 16m four lane standard here in Norway: So that we save all the fertile soil the road would otherwise occupy.


Actually, the correct term for this road is according to the road administration is "two-lane road with continuos passing lanes in both direction". Sounds kind of silly..... But fact is that Slomarka-Kongsvinger (and parts of E18 in inner Østfold) is not built after the book according to the standards of four lane roads with speed limit >80km/h. It´s actually built by the standards of 12,5m two-lane road with central guardrail, and occasional passing lanes (class S5-road in the old handbook 017). That means according to the standards 90km/h and minimum horizontal curve of 450m (_smallest horizontal curve on a 100km/h road in Norway today_) radius (_don't know if there will be that small curves on this road_). Also the vertical alignment allows smaller radius on both the convex and the concave curve than t.ex an S8-road (_H8 in new hb017_).

But I think it´s an okay standard. The curvature is good (except on parts of Kløfta-Nybakk), and keep in mind that many countries further south in Europe would probably built a road with the traffic-number of E16 at this point as a two-lane road instead! Sweden and espessally Denmark (on E-roads) require an low daily-mean traffic before building a four-laner. Theres also a lot of narrow four-laners all over Europe. Try driving on some of the toll-free four-laners in Italy! 



devo said:


> First part of E 16 Kløfta - Nybakk was 10 km long. Let's just say every part of this road was built on fertile land. That gives us 0,16 km2. Now, if the road was 23 m wide, that would have occupied 0,23 km2.
> So, the difference is 0,07 km2. If the road was built to proper standards, we would lose a whopping 0,00069 percent of the total fertile land in Norway (appr. 10 068 km2). So hurray to the conclusion that this saves fertile land.
> 
> Then, the road obviously doesn't stop at the verge. In total, we dont save nada. It's ridiculous. What happens when the road has to be widened to comply with the standards in the future?
> 
> Stuff like this is pseudo-politics and drives me insane.


I agree with you about the land confiscated, but the small width is Fylkesmannens claim, and they have a LOT to say in such cases! And Fylkesmannen does`nt always agree with himself even, when it comes to farming vs. environment.


----------



## Kjello0

Gsus said:


> Actually, the correct term for this road is according to the road administration is "two-lane road with continuos passing lanes in both direction".


Actually, this kind of road isn't included in the new Håndbok N100. So I guess they are history.

The new H5 now only includes the 12.5 meter 1+1 road. And the 14.75 meter 2+1 road.

Perhaps they discovered that the 2+2 roads save very little money compared to the 20 meter motorway.


----------



## Agent 006

devo said:


> Let's all take a moment and remind ourselves why we have this biblically ridiculous 16m four lane standard here in Norway: So that we save all the fertile soil the road would otherwise occupy.
> 
> First part of E 16 Kløfta - Nybakk was 10 km long. Let's just say every part of this road was built on fertile land. That gives us 0,16 km2. Now, if the road was 23 m wide, that would have occupied 0,23 km2.
> So, the difference is 0,07 km2. If the road was built to proper standards, we would lose a whopping 0,00069 percent of the total fertile land in Norway (appr. 10 068 km2). So hurray to the conclusion that this saves fertile land.
> 
> Then, the road obviously doesn't stop at the verge. In total, we dont save nada. It's ridiculous. What happens when the road has to be widened to comply with the standards in the future?
> 
> Stuff like this is pseudo-politics and drives me insane.


I'm totally agree. E16 Kløfta - Kongsvinger should have been motorway. But they didn't choose the 16 m standard primarily to save fertile land. Estimated AADT was slightly lower than the 12 000 needed to get a motorway, but since the 16 m standard still existed then, they used it instead of building a 2+1 road. They chosed a "compromise".

The Slomarka - Kongsvinger part was originally planned as a 20 m motorway, as between 2002 and 2007 the lower AADT-limit for building motorway was only 10 000. The "kommunedelplan" is also according to a 20 m standard. But the "reguleringsplan" was passed later, and contains only a 16,5 m road according to the 2008 standard.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Also, E16 has two branches, if you're coming from Fagernes, E16 goes via Hønefoss and then to Gardermoen. However, if you're coming from Oslo, E16 is signed from the Sandvika interchange to Hønefoss, which is the old route.


----------



## Kjello0

Suburbanist said:


> /offtopic question: is ø the same character both in N and D, or are there minor differneces?


Exactly the same. Written Norwegian comes from Danish. One of the effect of being controlled by Denmark for 400 years.


----------



## Suburbanist

Kjello0 said:


> Exactly the same. Written Norwegian comes from Danish. One of the effect of being controlled by Denmark for 400 years.


seconf off-topic question on this subject: is this the same as the diameter mathematical symbol when written on a Norwegian keyboard or not?


----------



## Gsus

ChrisZwolle said:


> By the way, what does -moen means? I've seen many places / locations ending in -moen.


"-moen", or "-mo" has two related meanings: 
(1) Its a flat area, often near a river, that has brought masses and made a flat landscape between valley-sides. Often forests has grown here, or its just open landscape.
(2) The other meaning derives from the first one, and is places used for army exercise drills, and army bases from hundreds of years back. Examples of these names are Jørstadmoen in Lillehammer, Setermoen in Troms, Terningmoen in Elverum and Gardermoen, which is now Oslos main airport.


----------



## Stafangr

> By the way, what does -moen means? I've seen many places / locations ending in -moen.


 According to wikipedia, a _mo_ is a flat area, a field, etc. Usually a dry and sandy field. I rarely hear it being used besides as a family name or at the end of place names. It's more common in the east than in the west. The navy/air force recruitment camp KNM Harald Hårfagre is located at Madlamoen in Stavanger (west coast), but nobody around here ever uses the name Madlamoen. A lot of military camps are named _-moen_, which I guess is because they were placed at a dry, flat field.


----------



## Stafangr

> Exactly the same. Written Norwegian comes from Danish.


Bokmål is derived (altought 'norwegianized') from Danish grammar. Nynorsk isn't, but still uses æøå.


----------



## suburbicide

ChrisZwolle said:


> I noticed electric cars are quite popular in Norway, especially in the larger urban areas, such as Bergen and Oslo. You can recognize them with the license plate that starts with EL (elbil - electric car). I've seen more electric cars in 3 hours around Bergen than in a month in the Netherlands.


Tesla Model S is actually the second best selling car in Norway so far this year, just behind VW Golf. Another electric car, Nissan Leaf, has the number 3 spot.

This is of course due to the incentives that are in place (practically no taxes, (not even VAT), free tolls, free ferries, free public parking, allowed to drive in bus lanes).


----------



## Bjørne

suburbicide said:


> Tesla Model S is actually the second best selling car in Norway so far this year, just behind VW Golf. Another electric car, Nissan Leaf, has the number 3 spot.


Actually... In March this year, 1493 Tesla Model S's were sold in Norway, out of about 3000 cars in total. That's more than 70 cars per day! VW Golf was in second place, with 624 cars.

The last (and only) time a car model was even close to that number was in 1986, when 1454 Ford Sierra's were sold in May that year.

Sources:
Dagbladet.no
TV2.no


----------



## OulaL

Suburbanist said:


> seconf off-topic question on this subject: is this the same as the diameter mathematical symbol when written on a Norwegian keyboard or not?


No. That symbol should have a perfect circle in it, whereas letter ø has the letter o. Depending on the font you're using, "o" is usually not a circle (but a litter higher than it is wide).

To finish with this offtopic, diameter can also be shortened as d.


----------



## Agent 006

ChrisZwolle said:


> The last part of E16 east of Kongsvinger is now also be brought up to standards. It's under construction to widen it by 1 m on either side, across 16 km between Masterud and Øyermoen. The rest is now widened to two lanes that can accommodate 80 km/h.
> 
> However, there is a railroad underpass just east of Kongsvinger that is too low for trucks (I think it was about 3 m clearance). A detour is posted for trucks.
> 
> By the way, what does -moen means? I've seen many places / locations ending in -moen.


Skinnarbøl (Kongsvinger) - Masterud will get 8,5 m standard, Masterud - Jammerdal already got this standard, while Jammerdal - Øyermoen (Border) will be 7,5 m wide. The last stretch could get a new road somewhere in the future though.


----------



## Galro

ChrisZwolle said:


> I noticed electric cars are quite popular in Norway, especially in the larger urban areas, such as Bergen and Oslo. You can recognize them with the license plate that starts with EL (elbil - electric car). I've seen more electric cars in 3 hours around Bergen than in a month in the Netherlands.


I believe electric cars currently have an market share of 13% here in Norway.


----------



## Gsus

ChrisZwolle said:


> ....However, if you're coming from Oslo, E16 is signed from the Sandvika interchange to Hønefoss, which is the old route.


Worth mentioning is the construction of a new four lane E16, mainly in tunnel under Sandvika. The new section will only be 3,5 km long, but is expected to cost as much as NOK 3,8 billions (EUR 381 millions), because of (among other things) though geology, existing infrastructure, and the fact that this is a heavily dense populated area. The project was sent out for contractors to give price a couple of days ago.

http://www.tu.no/vareveger/nyheter/2014/06/11/gigantjobb-utlyst-pa-e16

The new section will include a 2,3 km long tunnel under central Sandvika, and the construction of a new network of local roads. The new tunnel is to be built so that the new E16 may connect directly into a new E18 in tunnel under Sandvika. Whether the new E18 will come anytime soon, is still to be seen.

The current E16 through Sandvika is one of the most heavily trafficated two lane roads in Norway, with a daily mean traffic of well over 30 000 vehicles. 

Construction is expected to commence around New Year, and due to completion by december 2019. Speed limit will be 80km/h, and the new road will connect E18 with a four lane section of E16 opened in 2009.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Many roads in Norway run alongside lakes of fjords. But these routes could be made much more interesting for tourists if they were to cut the trees blocking the view. Often there is just a small line of deciduous trees that are blocking the view. I understand if there is a small forest between the road and the lake/fjord, but often it's just one line of trees. 

Another possible improvement are parking areas. Due to the curvy roads, you often don't spot scenic parking areas until the last possible moment. It would be better if they would sign such parking areas about 300 meters in advance so drivers can prepare to stop.


----------



## Heico-M

ChrisZwolle said:


> Many roads in Norway run alongside lakes of fjords. But these routes could be made much more interesting for tourists if they were to cut the trees blocking the view. Often there is just a small line of deciduous trees that are blocking the view. I understand if there is a small forest between the road and the lake/fjord, but often it's just one line of trees.


Signed! 

But it may be for windshield reasons (?)



ChrisZwolle said:


> Another possible improvement are parking areas. Due to the curvy roads, you often don't spot scenic parking areas until the last possible moment. It would be better if they would sign such parking areas about 300 meters in advance so drivers can prepare to stop.


That is also true, however, they have been working on it during the last years, check the National Tourist Roads (Nasjonale Turistveger) for instance.

What I find more troubling is that the old adventurous narrow roads are more and more disappearing due to widening. This is of course understandable from a native's point of view, but for a tourist, it is just a shame. 

Could be I mentioned this before, couldn't it? :shifty:


----------



## Ingenioren

Heico-M said:


> What I find more troubling is that the old adventurous narrow roads are more and more disappearing due to widening. This is of course understandable from a native's point of view, but for a tourist, it is just a shame.


You will be more forced of the main roads and onto alternative back roads for example for Bergen - Voss there is the Bergsdalen route:


----------



## Kjello0

Heico-M said:


> Signed!
> 
> But it may be for windshield reasons (?)


The reason is simply that it costs to much and it's hard to do it in a safe way.


----------



## suburbicide

Oslo "bus lane" at rush hour...









Source: http://www.josy.no/index.php/blogg/...t-avgifter-slipper-bompenger-gratis-parkering


----------



## ChrisZwolle

I found the Oslo road network to be woefully substandard for a large city. The "motorways" had a speed limit of just 70 km/h. Bergen was worse though, the 'motorway' E39 looks like a controlled-access residential street at times.


----------



## IceCheese

^^There's no more room for cars in downtown Oslo, so that's perfectly fine by me. We could use a couple of new bypasses though.
70km/h as a speed limit within urban Oslo is due to health reasons. Oslo is one of the world's most polluted cities at winter, constantly breaking EU-rules for air quality. A lower speed limit aggregates lower levels of road dust. You're not likely to spend more than 20 minutes to pass the city eitherway.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

I doubt if it is safe to have 100 km/h on the Oslo 'motorways'. They are very curvy and don't seem to be designed for current traffic demand. 

Are there plans for more bypasses? They need a lot of tunnels. I suppose the far, far majority of traffic on Ring 3 and E6 in Oslo has a destination or origin within the urban area.


----------



## x-type

thx.
so 343 NOK from S-N border to Bergen.


----------



## RV

Are they going to do something about E18 in Oslo area?


----------



## IceCheese

South of Oslo, no. Only south of the E6 junction at Vinterbro
(picture because this thread needs more of them)



West of Oslo it looks like they'll start on tunneling from Lysaker to Slependen. But this project is turning incredibly expensive. It's also politicly turning very controversial, due to both air quality and general climate goals. Many sees the money better invested on increasing capacity on the metro.
A couple of shorter stretches on E18 west is passing downtown Asker and Filipstad with tunnels. These are not as controversial.


----------



## OulaL

Ingenioren said:


> Political interests for sure, but it wasn't the first ferry free route.


Sorry, forgot 50.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

*Eiksund Tunnel*

The Eiksund Tunnel became toll free on Saturday. The Eiksund Tunnel is the world's deepest undersea tunnel at -287 meters. However, the actual height difference is more like 350 meters because the tunnel portals are above sea level.

http://www.smp.no/nyheter/article9803851.ece


----------



## Suburbanist

Are there any restrictions on LPG-powered cars on these deep long tunnels?


----------



## Kjello0

ChrisZwolle said:


> However, the actual height difference is more like 350 meters *because the tunnel portals are above sea level*.


I find it so amusing that you feel you have to point that out...


----------



## ChrisZwolle

You know what I mean...  The southern tunnel portal is at +60 m or so.


----------



## Ingenioren

*E6 Oppland*

2 kilometers of motorway will start construction this fall on E6, the west bank of Mjøsa in Oppland, also 16km of the current road will get a center barrier pending further financing for adding the extra two lanes:










http://www.vegvesen.no/Europaveg/e6biriotta/Delprosjekter/e6biriensby

*E6 / Rv706*

Intersection:









E6 (Trondheim bypass + widened local road)









Rv706 (Trondheim eastern entrance):









3 level round-about:








Rv706 central Trondheim:


----------



## Ramino

Suburbanist said:


> Many of these pricey toll tunnels or bridges would require extensive detours to be avoided, and/or they were served by ferries with charged the same price (if not more) and were often disrupted by high winds, and also took much longer.
> 
> This is very different than a situation where you just have a city bypass road/tunnel that you can avoid paying a bit.


This will be interesting to see when Ryfast opens. Part of the project is Hundvågtunnellen which will provide a second link between the island borough of Hundvåg and mainland Stavanger. It will probably be faster for people heading south of town, but I could see some people choosing the current bridge which is free instead of paying the 30 kr toll for the tunnel. If the proposal of creating a toll ring around the city center (which bridge users would need to pass) becomes reality the bridge might be less of a money saver though.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

*Rv. 7 Buskerud*

A panorama of Riksvei 7 along lake Krøderen. This is north of where the new alignment will connect later this month.


Riksvei 7 Kroderen by Chriszwolle, on Flickr


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

[


IceCheese said:


> ^^We should start writing it Áslo instead .
> 
> A lot of the heavy traffic on Ring 3 actually isn't headed for Oslo or anywhere near. Ferries and crappy roads in general leads traffic from Middle-Norway (Trøndelag, Møre og Romsdal) to Vestlandet/Sørlandet this way.


Aslow 

Probably not your point, but I thought the majority of the through traffic from north to south-west in Oslo chose Vålereng/Ekebergs/Bjørvika - tunnels and not Ring 3. I also thought Ring 3 was renamed E6 east of Ulven, but a check on Google map made me uncertain. Anyway, there are much faster routes from the north to Vestlandet north of Boknafjorden than Oslo, and in any case Chris is absolutely right that local traffic dominates the main roads of Oslo. Rv 22 is only a viable bypass during extreme rush hour, or for odd destinations, the short improvement to Fet does not change that. The Manglerud tunnel, although not strictly a bypass, might improve the conditions for north - south traffic if built, but probably any nominal gain by then has been swamped by increased traffic.

Although I would love to see a proper eastern bypass around Oslo, or for that matter, a direct  Trondheim - Bergen route given the recent poor decisions regarding E39, I do not see either happen. There is simply no push for it, and probably more important challenges to address.


----------



## Galro

54°26′S 3°24′E;114968065 said:


> [
> I also thought Ring 3 was renamed E6 east of Ulven, but a check on Google map made me uncertain.


It's named e6 after Ryenkrysset. It's seems like google consider it to be a hybrid between Ryen and Ulven though but I do not think that stretch is signposted as e6.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Ryen - Ulven is signed as both E6 and Ring 3.


----------



## ElviS77

ChrisZwolle said:


> Ryen - Ulven is signed as both E6 and Ring 3.


Yup. Drive there every day I can't be bothered with public transport...


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

Confirmed independently by Street view below ;-) Could it be, though, that Vålerenga and Ekeberg tunnels still are the official E6 in order to keep that stretch as a national road, and hence the map confusion? 

A friend of mine used to drive there as well, and told me he had to go by 0530 to avoid significant delay. He might have been exaggerating, though. 
---
E6

http://goo.gl/maps/jaSan
Ulvensplitten

http://goo.gl/maps/FgKZ2
Ulvensplitten

http://goo.gl/maps/NFyGP


http://goo.gl/maps/PbE9m
E6

http://goo.gl/maps/Ckt0V
Ring3

http://goo.gl/maps/ebCBX


----------



## Ingenioren

Both the Ryen - Bjørvika and Ulven - Bjørvika ekspressways is designated as "E6 arm". Rv190 exists no more, and it was never signed as such either. Ring3 from Ulven to Lysaker also has the number Rv150, but not signed. Ring2 has the number Rv161 altough it is now illigal to drive it between Tøyen and Carl Berner(meaning Ring2 is meaningless as of 28.mai this year!)

Some renders from the very impressive project of E18 trough Bærum, alternative 4 is the one prefered by municipality. Blue is buslanes, red is bikeroad:


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

Ingenioren said:


> Both the Ryen - Bjørvika and Ulven - Bjørvika ekspressways is designated as "E6 arm". Rv190 exists no more, and it was never signed as such either.


I think this make sense. Since E18 south of Bjørvika is slow, Ryen - Bjørvika - Ulvensplitten is the defacto (huge) interchange between E18 to the west and E6.


----------



## sotonsi

Wikipedia says it's an unsigned Rv190.
http://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riksvei_190

Edit: didn't read that Rv190 had been mentioned.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

ChrisZwolle said:


> Ryen - Ulven is signed as both E6 and Ring 3.





ElviS77 said:


> Yup. Drive there every day I can't be bothered with public transport...



E6-104 by Chriszwolle, on Flickr


E6-105 by Chriszwolle, on Flickr


E6-107 by Chriszwolle, on Flickr


E6-108 by Chriszwolle, on Flickr


E6-111 by Chriszwolle, on Flickr


----------



## Suburbanist

Galro said:


> No, they have plenty of them. They are just not located on the Dannish mainland.


Okay, fair enough


----------



## Gsus

MattiG said:


> The old road is currently a regional road (Aurlandvegen) up to Erdal and a local road up to Vindedalen. The final leg to Revsnes is closed. It still may be passable by a bicycle, depending on how badly it is damaged. (The road was closed 99 times during its last 25 years due to landslides and avalanches.)


The road further out from Vindedal is still accessible by car too, although there are some rocks lying in the road here and there. At least when I rode a bicycle out that road a couple of years ago. Don´t remember exactly what kind of company that had some sort of junkyard out at Revsnes, but the road is only locked with a traditional liftable barrier.


----------



## Heico-M

Galro said:


> No, they have plenty of them. They are just not located on the Dannish mainland.


Oh, yes they are. 
Flensborg Fjord, Aabenraa Fjord, Haderslev Fjord, Kolding Fjord, Vejle Fjord, Horsens Fjord, to name but a few, are all of ice age origin, just like the Norwegian Fjords. They just do not reach the elevations on either shores to be that spectacular. But originally, they are the same. And they are on the Danish mainland. 

(BTW Oslo Fjord is NOT of ice age origin, so it is not a legitimate Fjord anyway.)


----------



## Suburbanist

How busy is the Russian-Norwegian border crossing east of Kirkenes? Something like few hundred vehicles per day or much on the thousands?


----------



## Galro

Heico-M said:


> Oh, yes they are.
> Flensborg Fjord, Aabenraa Fjord, Haderslev Fjord, Kolding Fjord, Vejle Fjord, Horsens Fjord, to name but a few, are all of ice age origin, just like the Norwegian Fjords. They just do not reach the elevations on either shores to be that spectacular. But originally, they are the same. And they are on the Danish mainland.


Yes, but that's not the kind of fjords Suburbanist was referring to which was what I answered to. 



Heico-M said:


> (BTW Oslo Fjord is NOT of ice age origin, so it is not a legitimate Fjord anyway.)


I'm aware.


----------



## Heico-M

Galro said:


> Yes, but that's not the kind of fjords Suburbanist was referring to which was what I answered to.


I can imagine what you two meant. 
But saying, Denmark has no fjords, is just wrong. :cheers:


----------



## devo

Suburbanist said:


> Some sectors of E18 have not been upgraded to expressway standards (even if 1+1). Are there plans for a full segregated highway from Kristiansand and Oslo?


All of it will be motorway. Vestfold is soon completed (2017).

Then (almost) all of the non-motortrafikkvei-stretches will be upgraded.
(Arendal-Tvedestrand & Dørdal-Rugtvedt. The section between Tvedestrand and Risør is pretty decent.) 
Last but not least they will rebuild the recently built 2+1 road over Brokelandsheia.

—

Also, all of E 39 to from Kristiansand to Stavanger will be motorway in the future.

This can, according to the current government, happen in the next 10 to 15 years. We'll see about that. At least this government seems to have some basic knowledge about how infrastructure works, and how one goes about improving it.


----------



## MattiG

Suburbanist said:


> How busy is the Russian-Norwegian border crossing east of Kirkenes? Something like few hundred vehicles per day or much on the thousands?


According to the statistics from 2012-2013, about 300,000 persons per year. The number is increasing.


----------



## :jax:

One feature of a fjord is that it has a more shallow mouth where it meets the sea. That is a consequence of how it was made geologically, carved out by melting glaciers on the way to the sea, or more exactly by the gravel on the underside of that glacier. A U-shaped valley is carved out by a glacier, while a V-shaped valley is carved out by a river. A fjord would then be a submerged U-shaped valley. 

A definition of a fjord is that a a fjord is an inlet with a mouth, that has been carved out by a glacier. By that definition some "flat fjords" would be fjords as well, I think that includes some (mainland) Danish fjords. I don't think it includes the Oslo Fjord, at least part of it, as that area isn't land ground down by ice and stone, but sea bottom that has risen with the rest of Scandinavia. (Scandinavia was weighted down by all the ice on top 10,000 years ago. In a geological time scale that was yesterday, so Scandinavia is still bobbing up, while on the other end of the continent Italy is sinking.)


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

According to the geographic definition, non of the mainland Danish or West- coast Swedish fjords are true fjords, while most Norwegian fjords are, with notable exceptions like already mentioned Oslofjorden and Vestfjorden. This is however a highly academic discussion. The Scandinavian usage of the word predates the modern scientific definition by many millenia.

From an infrastructure perspective, the layout of true fjords are however worth noting. The main basins of the fjords are often quite wide (many km), and could also be deep. Sognefjorden is more than 1300 m deep, Trondheimsfjorden is 600, as far as I remember. This means that constructing a permanent railway or road crossing could be a real engineering challenge. However, at the mouth, and sometimes also in other sections of the fjords, the glaciers deposited huge amounts of gravel making thresholds of shallower water that can improve feasibility of such projects.


----------



## Mirror's Edge

^^Several of the Swedish fjords are much deeper farther in and then shallower near the sea, Gullmarsfjorden is 118m inside and 20-40 at the entrance to the ocean, 1-3km wide and 30-35km long. Not a huge fjord but yeah that's a "real fjord" alright.

Anyway in Swedish the word fjord is just a west coast version of the word Fjärd used elsewhere, today it's however often used to describe this unique kind of waterway but no doubt in West-Sweden and DK it's the word for "waterway", not need for depth BS etc.


----------



## dj4life

There are a few true fjords in Sweden. Gullmarsfjorden is one of them.


----------



## Suburbanist

54°26′S 3°24′E;115437409 said:


> According to the geographic definition, non of the mainland Danish or West- coast Swedish fjords are true fjords, while most Norwegian fjords are, with notable exceptions like already mentioned Oslofjorden and Vestfjorden. This is however a highly academic discussion. The Scandinavian usage of the word predates the modern scientific definition by many millenia.
> 
> From an infrastructure perspective, the layout of true fjords are however worth noting. The main basins of the fjords are often quite wide (many km), and could also be deep. *Sognefjorden is more than 1300 m deep*, Trondheimsfjorden is 600, as far as I remember. This means that constructing a permanent railway or road crossing could be a real engineering challenge. However, at the mouth, and sometimes also in other sections of the fjords, the glaciers deposited huge amounts of gravel making thresholds of shallower water that can improve feasibility of such projects.


That is a very deep fjord indeed.

What about using floating bridges/tunnels to cross these deep fjords too wide for a suspension bridge?


----------



## Stafangr

Suburbanist said:


> That is a very deep fjord indeed.
> 
> What about using floating bridges/tunnels to cross these deep fjords too wide for a suspension bridge?


Fjords are often as deep as the mountainsides along them are tall.

The Nordhordland Bridge north of Bergen is a 1.6 km long floating bridge (picture below) which crosses Salhusfjorden/Osterfjorden, which is more than 600 meters deep at some places. _Statens vegvesen_ is considering a floating bridge or a floating tunnel for crossing Sognefjorden (video below). I don't think a floating tunnel has ever been built before, but with the engineering expertise there is in Norway in the offshore-industries, perhaps it will be feasible.

















> Anyway in Swedish the word fjord is just a west coast version of the word Fjärd used elsewhere, today it's however often used to describe this unique kind of waterway but no doubt in West-Sweden and DK it's the word for "waterway", not need for depth BS etc.


Hmm, I've never noticed the word _fjärd_ before.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

The term "förde" is also used in northern Germany, especially in Schleswig-Holstein state. 

The geological definition of a fjord differs from the Scandinavian term fjord, which is much older (and broader). Sometimes the word fjord is also used for bays in Galicia (Spain) and Montenegro / Croatia, but the term "ría" is more appropriate (sunken valleys).


----------



## :jax:

Suburbanist said:


> That is a very deep fjord indeed.
> 
> What about using floating bridges/tunnels to cross these deep fjords too wide for a suspension bridge?


I kind of hope they will. It would be a sort of a rich man's folly to engineer something like that in areas where few people live, but there are many economically important straits and channels, particularly in Asia, that share the characteristics of a fjord crossing and would benefit from a "Norwegian prototype". Either because of sea floor depth like the fjords, or maybe length or earthquake resistance. Politicians are naturally wary of a massively expensive project with unproven technology.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

A floating suspension bridge is likely impossible, due to the way forces are lead to the ground. Usually suspension cables are anchored into the ground, or in a huge block of concrete in the water (like the San Francisco - Oakland Bay Bridge). I'm not sure if that will work with a floating object.

However, a floating cable-stayed bridge may be a better option for a Fjord crossing. The Nordhordland Bridge is a first step, but in that case the main pylons are built on land. 

From what I've seen, the Sognefjord crossing is envisioned as a floating multi-span cable-stayed bridge. But isn't it feasible (and cheaper) as a large version of the Nordhordland Bridge? A single main span near the shore for cruise ships, and the rest of the route as a low-level floating causeway.


----------



## IceCheese

:jax: said:


> I kind of hope they will. It would be a sort of a rich man's folly to engineer something like that in areas where few people live, but there are many economically important straits and channels, particularly in Asia, that share the characteristics of a fjord crossing and would benefit from a "Norwegian prototype". Either because of sea floor depth like the fjords, or maybe length or earthquake resistance. Politicians are naturally wary of a massively expensive project with unproven technology.


We can start with the one that is where people live. Moss-Horten is about 250 meters down to sediments, some places more than 400 meters down to rock. http://www.vegvesen.no/_attachment/...Oslofjordkrysningen+-+status+for+arbeidet.pdf


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

Chris: What you suggest har more or less been suggested for a crossing of Trondheimsfjorden:








However, you need somewhere to put that other pylon, in the Trondheimfjorden case they wanted to utilize a submerged "mountain"/ skerry. Reinertsen has suggested to combine a floating bridge with a floating tunnel, both for Sognefjorden, Rovdefjorden, and Trondheimsfjorden. It is stabilized by an aritificial sea bottom anchoraged to the coast at either side.









Appart from the costs, there are problems with either solutions. Some industries, like the offshore industry in the inner Trondheim fjord, is dependent on quite deep sailing depths, which makes the partly submerged solution tricky. At the same time, suspension bridges with sufficient sailing heights probably will be quite expensive. A fully submerged tunnel will have some maintenance and safety issues as well.


----------



## IceCheese

Back to motorway-news..
E18 Gulli-Langåker officially opened today, 4 months early. As usual for such a "prestige way of spending state money" both prime minister, minister of transportation, and all possible mayors was at place in the midst of the common holiday.


----------



## Suburbanist

How deep is the Trondheimsfjord?

How much depth clearance would they need for the deepest structures?

Is a "floating drawbridge" ever feasible?


----------



## ChrisZwolle

IceCheese said:


> Gulli-Langåker


I noticed a tendency in Norway to use very exact and very local names with road projects. Gulli is just outside Tønsberg and Langåker is just outside Sandefjord, two larger towns. 

Sometimes these places Vegvesen uses in their press releases are impossible to find on a map.


----------



## IceCheese

I'm not quite sure why, but it's probably easier internally to refer to projects by the first and last intersection it covers. Sometimes the projects are split in segments of less than 1 km.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

*E6 Otta - Dombås*

There is a forest fire along E6 in Gudbrandsdalen, north of Otta. It may close E6.



















An interesting factoid, Gudbrandsdalen is one of the driest areas in Europe, with an annual precipitation of 375 mm, similar to Albacete, Spain.


----------



## essendon bombers

chris - hope that you really enjoyed your drive. Nice pictures too. 

When I lived in England in the 90's I did train trip holiday with my folks Bergen-Oslo. We stayed in Voss for a couple of nights.

Did you visit Ulvik? We had a few nights there too in a lovely guesthouse beside the fjord. I remember in parts the drive between Voss and Ulvik (in a small bus) as the road went though an 8km tunnel which is the longest road tunnel I've been through.

I also remember Ulvik for the waitress in the hotel dining room who spoke English well. However when she agreed with us in conversation, she always said _Ja_ whilst breathing in. To us that was hilarious, haven't really met many people who talk when breathing in.

I would love to visit Norway again - maybe one day I'll get there.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

I was close to Ulvik, but went through the Vallavik Tunnel to Granvin, and then along Fv. 7 alongside the Hardangerfjord towards Norheimsund.


----------



## :jax:

essendon bombers said:


> I also remember Ulvik for the waitress in the hotel dining room who spoke English well. However when she agreed with us in conversation, she always said _Ja_ whilst breathing in. To us that was hilarious, haven't really met many people who talk when breathing in.


It is supposedly a fairly rare phenomena, mainly in parts of Northern Europe and even smaller parts of Northern America. Pulmonic ingressive

I have an impression it is more common among women than men, especially younger women, but I have no data to back that up, I could be wrong.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

*Rv.7, Hardangervidda*

A few photos of riksvei 7 across the Hardangervidda, the largest plateau in Europe.

1. An information sign at the point where convoy driving begins in winter time, from the Geilo side. 

Rv 7 Hardangervidda-1 by Chriszwolle, on Flickr

2. View on Hallingskarvet, the highest mountain range of Buskerud. The highest point is at 1.933 meters.

Rv 7 Hardangervidda-2 by Chriszwolle, on Flickr

3. View on Hardangerjøkulen, een large ice cap. The highest point is 1.863 meters and is the highest point in Hordaland. 

Rv 7 Hardangervidda-3 by Chriszwolle, on Flickr

4. Lots of ice lakes in June. This looks more interesting than some August photos I've seen.

Hardangervidda June 2014 by Chriszwolle, on Flickr

5. The county line between Buskerud and Hordaland.

Rv 7 Hardangervidda-4 by Chriszwolle, on Flickr

6. The initial descent towards Hardangerfjord.

Rv 7 Hardangervidda-5 by Chriszwolle, on Flickr

7. Hardangervidda is not particularly steep, there is a significant climb from Eidfjord onto Hardangervidda, but the signs say 6% max.

Rv 7 Hardangervidda-6 by Chriszwolle, on Flickr

8. Riksvei 7 along Vøringsfossen, a large waterfall.

Rv 7 Hardangervidda-7 by Chriszwolle, on Flickr


----------



## IceCheese

:jax: said:


> It is supposedly a fairly rare phenomena, mainly in parts of Northern Europe and even smaller parts of Northern America. Pulmonic ingressive
> 
> I have an impression it is more common among women than men, especially younger women, but I have no data to back that up, I could be wrong.


It is more common in phone calls, I guess, as you have to keep saying "ja" and "nei" all the time to keep the dialogue going.


----------



## suburbicide

A 3.4 km rebuilt section of riksvei 4 south of Lygna ("Lygna sør") opened to traffic earlier this week. It's technically a divided 1+1 road, but with a continuous passing lane northbound. The southbound section as a 1 km passing lane.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

Suburbanist said:


> How deep is the Trondheimsfjord?
> 
> How much depth clearance would they need for the deepest structures?
> 
> Is a "floating drawbridge" ever feasible?


At the place where a bridge is proposed now, the depth is more than 500 m. However, the depth to solid rock is more than 1100 my. Hence, other routes have been proposed for "traditional" tunnels in the past, but all alternatives have needed a length of more than 25 km and depth of more than 550 m. 

There is no fixed limit for what depth the offshore yards would like to see. Some of the floaters can have a draft of 150 m or more. 

A floating draw bridge does not sound feasible to me.


----------



## Stafangr

54°26′S 3°24′E;115499768 said:


> A floating draw bridge does not sound feasible to me.


Why not? Are you an engineer, or are you guessing? Or is it the price you think will be too high?


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

Because the opening will be a weak point in a construction that is already pushing what is techno-economic feasible. (and I am working within physics/technology, but have not within civil engineering)


----------



## ChrisZwolle

I can imagine it could be a problem if the bridge can't close completely due to slightly moved pontoons in the water.

Another option for steep fjords may be a large cable-stayed bridge, but with only one set of pylons at the shoreline, and then a large span that could be several hundred meters long to let cruise ships pass near the shoreline. The longest cable-stayed bridge span is in Vladivostok, Russia and is 1.104 meters long. With one set of pylons, a span half that length could be possible.


----------



## suburbicide

Four people were slightly injured today when a car ferry on the Tjøtta-Forvik connection slammed into the pier today. It's the third accident the company Torghatten has had since they took over the connection a week ago.










Here's a video showing the attempt to maneuver the ferry to pier after the main crash, which resulted in further destruction:

http://www.nrk.no/nordland/flere-skadet-etter-fergekollisjon-1.11818838


----------



## Stafangr

Last week, the ferry Stavanger - Tau had problems three days in a row.



> Tirsdag feide MF "Hardanger" rett inn i kaianlegget metervis fra kaiinngangen på Tau. Ferja fikk såkalt "blackout" og propellene sluttet å fungere.
> 
> Onsdag røk festet som skulle holde MF "Stavanger" in til kaikanten da passasjerene skulle kjøre i land.
> 
> Torsdag begynte det å brenne i motoren til MF "Stord".


----------



## ChrisZwolle

*E39, Bergen*

Some photos of E39 through Bergen.

1. The motorway begins at a roundabout with E16 in Åsane, where they are currently constructing a flyover for E39 traffic.

E39 Bergen-1 by Chriszwolle, on Flickr

2. Bergen has a toll ring.

E39 Bergen-2 by Chriszwolle, on Flickr

3. 

E39 Bergen-3 by Chriszwolle, on Flickr

4. Salhus.

E39 Bergen-4 by Chriszwolle, on Flickr

5. There is a large shopping mall in Åsane.

E39 Bergen-5 by Chriszwolle, on Flickr

6. 

E39 Bergen-6 by Chriszwolle, on Flickr

7. 

E39 Bergen-8 by Chriszwolle, on Flickr

8. 

E39 Bergen-9 by Chriszwolle, on Flickr

9. Eidsvåg.

E39 Bergen-10 by Chriszwolle, on Flickr

10. The motorway status ends here.

E39 Bergen-11 by Chriszwolle, on Flickr

11. Eidsvåg Tunnel.

E39 Bergen-12 by Chriszwolle, on Flickr

12. The bypass of Bergen.

E39 Bergen-13 by Chriszwolle, on Flickr

13. Minimalistic signage. 

E39 Bergen-14 by Chriszwolle, on Flickr

14. 

E39 Bergen-15 by Chriszwolle, on Flickr

15. A motorway through your back yard.

E39 Bergen-16 by Chriszwolle, on Flickr

16. 

E39 Bergen-17 by Chriszwolle, on Flickr

17. Downtown Bergen

E39 Bergen-19 by Chriszwolle, on Flickr

18. A complex interchange where E39 meets Rv. 555.

E39 Bergen-20 by Chriszwolle, on Flickr


----------



## John Maynard

Anyway, what's the point of making tolled city bypasses?
Especially, considering that the country is "extremely" rich with oil revenues, has very few people living in, has already one of the highest taxes in the world and the worldwide record for fuel price. 
Does its inhabitants are masochists, or are they profoundly anti-car to accept such things?


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Most of the oil revenue is going into the Pension Fund, and is not directly invested in the country. They have enough revenue to build all roads toll-free, but they thought it would fire up inflation if they spend that much money. The Pension Fund contains $ 825 billion. 

The Bergen toll ring is not very expensive though.


----------



## John Maynard

ChrisZwolle said:


> Most of the oil revenue is going into the Pension Fund, and is not directly invested in the country. They have enough revenue to build all roads toll-free, but they thought it would fire up inflation if they spend that much money. The Pension Fund contains $ 825 billion.
> 
> The Bergen toll ring is not very expensive though.


Why not invest more for the country instead of investing in The Government Pension Fund of Norway (which btw. is not even a pension fund) by reducing its exorbitant (IMO, unnecessarily high) incomes to redistribute them in important national projects, as well, to reduce funny gas prices?
In fact, many roads in Norway are tolled, there is also very few motorway/expressway; so basically these toll roads are mostly 2-lane rural highways or 4 lane "sub-expressway standards" bypasses, not to mention several cities charging motorists just to transit them.


----------



## Heico-M

Galro said:


> Lack of currency after ww2 and it was decided that what Norway had should rather be used to import necessarily things for rebuilding the country. Soviet on the other hand were willing to exchange cars for fish and gods which we had more of.


How does one imagine Norway in the 1960s then? Horse carriages and a few Ladas?


----------



## g.spinoza

Galro said:


> Soviet on the other hand were willing to exchange cars for fish and *gods* which we had more of.


Wasn't SSSR a non-confessional country? Did it import Thor? :-D


----------



## :jax:

Heico-M said:


> How does one imagine Norway in the 1960s then? Horse carriages and a few Ladas?


Pre-1960 in the remote countryside? There wasn't even a connected road network for the cars to drive on. By 1960 all (?) the mainland towns and villages were connected by roads and car ferries and new regional bus routes (some island villages took longer), but there was a massive road construction program after the war, and before and during the war as well. 

Before that? Boats mainly, that's how the villages got there in the first place. When there was land to cross you walked, sometimes across mountain passes. That was a bit easier in the winter time, when you could ski. 

There were no buses, but the post boat could take you to the nearest town, which of course did have a road network and all the other trappings of civilisation.


----------



## sotonsteve

Lovely to see videos on your YouTube account of the Norway wilderness ChrisZwolle. Out of interest, what is the second song in your video "Rv. 7 Norway: Hardangervidda part II
"?


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

Numbers from the Nordic Nordic Council :








Sweden was a special case in 1960 due to its:

neutrality during ww2
domestic car production


----------



## Galro

Heico-M said:


> How does one imagine Norway in the 1960s then? Horse carriages and a few Ladas?


Lada was introduced in the mid'60s. 

There were still quite a few cars here still despite the restriction, but it was of course fewer than today. Local shop owners, doctors, police officers etc. were usually considered to have an important enough job to be allowed to buy western cars, and every small towns had a few of those so you ended up with having a few cars after all. 

All eastern block cars were popular. Gaz Volga were a common sight and were often used as cabs. IFA and Moskvitch were also popular. Outside of the eastern block we have always have had an preference for Swedish cars and both Volvo Pv and Saab 93 were hits here. There were also quite a few lower end four door American cars, which were considered to be luxury cars here. The various hardtops variants however were never popular here (too expensive) and have first become a common sight after they become classic cars in modern time. And of course there were the Volkswagen Beetle/Type 1 which was popular here as everywhere.


----------



## Galro

Here is a shot film from Oslo in 1954 with footage of the traffic at the time: 






And one from 1953:





But of course Oslo have always been more affluent that most of country.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

^^
In 1954 there were already close to 180 000 vehicles in Norway. Interesting videos.

There were of course also a road network in Norway pre 1960s, the national road between Trondheim and Oslo was first mentioned in 1152. There were quite significant improvements to the network in 1930s (crisis years) and 1950s, though. Of course, some parts were more difficult to connect due to geography. As for "no buses", the first bus route in Norway was started in 1908, far away from Oslo, and my grandfather was actually a part-time pre-WW2 countryside bus driver. The seaways have however of course historically been the easy route, and still has a significant part of the domestic freight transport, far larger than the railways.

I did a dive into the statistics of SSB (Statistics Norway):








There have been some changes and additions in the chategories through the years, but the trend is pretty clear, since early 50s, the number of cars have increased steadily except small bumps in mid 70s and late 80s. No signs of slowdown currently. At the end of 2013 there were 2.9 M cars (passenger cars and lighter vans) in Norway, or 0.57 per capita.

Looking more detailed at the period before 1970, we see that there was no apparent kink / shift in the gradient around 1960:








The major increase started earlier in the 50s, and hence the attempt of market regulation seems to have had little effect. No big surprise there, people have a tendency to find a way around regulations like that.

In the graphs above, pre-1920 was almost invisible, hence I made a plot showing also the pre-war motor history of Norway, using a logarithmic scale. According to SSB, the first car was registered in Norway in 1899, and three years later there was also a motorbike!


----------



## Suburbanist

Weren't railway links much faster on 19th century than sea links? If you look at rail maps, you can easily see they are rather fast considering the geography, they use inland shortcuts to places like Trondheim or Bodø, though it appears the only way to reach Narvik is via Sweden. 

Before oil propulsion came to ships, I bet trains were faster than steamships, as the Norwegian coast is a hostile place for fast navigation - either deal with harsh open waters and direct routes, or use protected channels around fjords that increase distance a lot.

------------

Incidentally, I have a question: which is the larger Norwegian city not close to a navigable waterway offering a direct link to an oceanic port?

Another question: since Norway is still not part of EU, do they hear many problems about Norwegian-registered cars being taken by Swedes or Danish to their countries? This is sometimes a problem for EU-citizens of countries bordering Switzerland, especially in regard of luxury or high-performance sports' cars.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

..


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

Trains / ships: You are right, but note that the first national railway in Norway connecting regions was completed in 1877 (Hamar to Trondheim via Røros). The railway took another 30 years to reach Bergen, so before that, sea travel was easier. It is actually possible to travel in sheltered water along most of the coast. Ship transport is generally cheaper and more energy efficient.

Norway only have two landlocked counties: Hedmark and Oppland, both with less than 200 000 inhabitants, representing about 7 % of the population in total. The biggest city in that region would be Hamar (26 000, 17th largest in Norway). Of course there are landlocked areas also in other counties, but all major cities have sea access. River transport is not widespread in Norway.

I never have heard about anyone stealing cars to Sweden. There has been some stories about cars being stolen and transported to the Baltics etc. , but generally, the old Norwegian car park is not that tempting....


----------



## Galro

54°26′S 3°24′E;115620326 said:


> ^^
> In 1954 there were already close to 180 000 vehicles in Norway. Interesting videos.


I wasn't referring to the number but rather the type of cars; Many seems to be American in origin and I can even spot what appears to be a Mercedes 300 there.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

Oh, I see. Then I rather should comment that "always" is a fairly strong word 

Seen on youtube today (to friggin hot to do anything sensible):

Animation of plan for new E6 somewhat south of Trondheim, Røskaft-Skjerdingstad, 16.3 km, estimated construction start 2018/19:





From the new Trondheim Strindheimtunnel. 
The weekend before opening:





After opening:


----------



## cwestah

Don't know if this has been discussed already, but I've had some toughs on an eastern and a western bypass of Oslo lately. As quite a lot of the south-north traffic is going through Oslo today and most of the inner Oslo highways consists of 2x2 and 2x3 lane roads, the traffic through the city is quite bad at times. 

Building a fourth beltway\ring road has been discussed, however due to Øst- and Vestmarka (very popular nature reserves) the planning seems to have stalled every time.

Looking at the map, it seems to me that there are roads making a belt around the Oslo area outside these nature reserves already. Most of the roads are however too small or in too bad condition to be an alternative to drive through the city today.

The roads I'm thinking of is:

*Western * Route 35 Holmestrand - Hokksund - Hønefoss -> E16 Hønefoss - Gardermoen. (Passing E134, Route 7, E16 and Route 4 before E6 at Gardermoen)

*Eastern* Route 120 & 151 Vestby - Enebakk - Lillestrøm - Skedsmokorset -> E6 Skedsmokorset - Gardermoen (Passing E18, Route 159 and E16 before E6 at Gardermoen )

It was surprising to me to see that it'd only take you 20 mins longer going Moss - Lillehammer or Tønsberg - Hønefoss on these bypasses today. Not a lot of improvement would be needed in order to make them as fast as the E6\E18. Some of the segments of the roads are already being improved, my question is: Would it be an idea to have a long term strategy improving these roads to a future "Ring 4" in order to move the through traffic away from Oslo? Please see my below map for reference. (If we'll see a future Moss - Horten road link, it'd even be a full beltway...)


----------



## ChrisZwolle

I drove E16 Hønefoss - Gardermoen last month. There are too many roundabouts near Gardermoen, 7 of them. However, Grua - Gardermoen is a fairly fast road, but would've been better with 2+1. 

E16 in the Jevnaker area needs upgrading.


----------



## Suburbanist

I still wonder is a Moss-Hørten toll tunnel couldn't be built on a financially feasible way.


----------



## cwestah

ChrisZwolle said:


> I drove E16 Hønefoss - Gardermoen last month. There are too many roundabouts near Gardermoen, 7 of them. However, Grua - Gardermoen is a fairly fast road, but would've been better with 2+1.
> 
> E16 in the Jevnaker area needs upgrading.


Sure, more or less the complete road will need an upgrade in order to facilitate as a possible beltway\bypass. What I'm wondering if it could be a possible project for the future as the road, even with todays poor standard, only takes 20 mins longer north-south than the major highways.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

Regarding the western bypass, the road Grua-E6 I would say is decent despite the roundabouts. Other sections further west are not up to even the Norwegian standards, but there are improvement plans both for E16 and rv 35. The biggest problem I see with the western bypass is that it will mean a serious detour for anyone trying to transit between E6 N and the population centers south of Oslo. (I have tried it once in a while when I am aware of jams in Oslo, and have regretted each time....)

Regarding the eastern bypass, it makes more sense on the map, but at least last time I drove in the area the roads had a long way to go.

In short, I think it is better to concentrate on other challenges in the kingdom


----------



## Heico-M

Roundabouts is ideology in Norwegian :lol:


----------



## cwestah

54°26′S 3°24′E;115629014 said:


> In short, I think it is better to concentrate on other challenges in the kingdom


Are you seriously saying we have other challenges when it comes to infrastructure in this country? :nuts:


----------



## Galro

cwestah said:


> No, you pay an own contribution of about 100-200 NOK for a consultation. Often a bit more when going to a specialist at the hospital e.g. However, after you've spent a predetermined amount (don't know the exact amount) on public health expenses, your next "visits" are free.


http://www.helfo.no/privatperson/egenandeler/Sider/default.aspx#.U8WSXLH9zK0


----------



## Galro

John Maynard said:


> Yet, is there no major opposition, nor petitions or demonstrations for this very unfair matter of fact?


The progress party have traditionally been against toll financing, but they are considered to be populistic in Norway due to this among other things and they do not have enough support to force anything through them self. You will sometime get petitions against specific toll schemes, but I don't think it have ever yield a result. Come to think of it I'm not sure if any petitions ave produced anything productive in this country at all. Keep in mind though that Norway is not a direct democracy like Switzerland and the politicians have no legal obligations to listen to the people here. We do not really have any traditions for referendums and effective petitions and there are few avenues available for your average joe to voice his opinion through.


----------



## Ramino

cwestah said:


> No, you pay an own contribution of about 100-200 NOK for a consultation. Often a bit more when going to a specialist at the hospital e.g. However, after you've spent a predetermined amount (don't know the exact amount) on public health expenses, your next "visits" are free.


Yet dental care in "socialist" Norway is not part of the free health care at allicard:
Seems to be the same in Sweden, while Denmark has a subsidized system.

What happened to the "Roads in Norway" btw? Maybe we need a "Taxation in Norway"-thread? :tongue2:


----------



## Kjello0

John Maynard said:


> Are the national roads - which I assume ring roads to be part of it - founded by municipalities instead of the national state in Norway?


Only the most important ring roads in the big cities are part of the national road network. Ring 1 and Ring 3 in Oslo, Rv 509 in Stavanger and Rv 706 in Trondheim.

National roads are supposed to be funded by the government. However, in reality the cities have been forced to accept toll roads to get any kind of funding from the government.

Though not stated publicly, at least the previous government made it pretty clear that cities wouldn't get any funding from the state, and hence not any new road without accepting toll roads as a part of the funding.

Why Rob73 is talking about municipality debts I have no idea.


----------



## Suburbanist

I wonder if Norway is 2nd in Europe on a rank of total length of road tunnels (Italy is first for sure)


----------



## cwestah

Posted this in the Norwegian sub forum:

http://www.nettavisen.no/nyheter/ny-vei-kan-ta-tre-og-en-halv-time-til-oslo/8455816.html

Basically an article showing a possible east-west motorway connecting central east to Stavanger, Haugesund and Bergen.


----------



## :jax:

Roads have to be financed somehow. The percentage which is user-financed seems haphazard, negotiated project for project. The arguably most important infrastructure in Scandinavia, the link Malmö-Copenhagen, the "Channel Tunnel" which connects Norway/Sweden with Denmark/the continent, is 100% user-financed. The governments of Sweden and Danmark put in critically important loan guarantees, but no money.

Once user-financing was rare in Norway, you just had to wait for central and/or local government to pay for it, now it seems the rule. The argument is similar as for credit, with user-financing you can get your things now, while paying for them.

Most tolls are dismantled when the road is paid for, but sometimes they remain to finance/subsidise the next road, or for city planning/subsidising public transport or other non-car purposes. Only the last one, which doesn't benefit drivers directly, can be said to "punish" drivers, though hopefully they get an indirect benefit in less traffic. There are also some cases where a toll road finance another road that the driver in question won't use or benefit from, but I think those cases are rare. 

I have no overview of toll roads, current or past, the percentage of user financing, and the degree they have/had financed other projects than the road they were on.

I think the toll roads around Oslo has paid itself off or is in the process of doing so, I don't know about Trondheim and Bergen. That it is the case with the largest cities isn't surprising. They have the biggest traffic/car problems, they also have most traffic making toll road financing feasible, with many cars at a modest fee. 

I don't know about Molde, but as a minor city it sounded surprising that the tolls would finance anything but roads, and from what I could read about the "Moldepakke" (Molde package) they won't, this is pure user financing of new roads.


----------



## :jax:

Suburbanist said:


> Norway as a country is very sparsely populated. It has hundreds of mostly undisturbed forests and quiet fjords.
> 
> There is no need to fuss about losing a couple hundred hectares of forests in the south for development or going berserk over the amount of land taken over by paving new highway lanes. There is also no need to pack everyone up and high in central Oslo as if it were Hong Kong either (I'm not saying it shouldn't have high-rises, just that it shouldn't offer multi-family buildings as the only or primary options for city dwellers).


Oh, but I do think 54°26′S 3°24′E has a point. This isn't just some forests in an underpopulated country, this is a massive ring of wilderness around Oslo, dwarfing the urban, suburban, and rural areas. Look at the map again. Dark gray is urban, light gray suburbs, orange rural, green is non-protected forest (or possibly semi-rural and rural respectively), blue is water and light indigo protected forest. There is far more indigo than shades of gray, and the population is growing as fast as you can find in any part of Europe.



54°26′S 3°24′E;115693520 said:


> However, it is from time to time debated whether these boundaries should be kept holy, as the result seems that farmland and satellite suburbs are developed instead. In Norway we have a lot more forest than farmland.


It definitely needs to be regularly discussed, the whole area could easily fit inside the Oslo city borders if the forest was razed. I don't think anyone is proposing that, but e.g. the non-forest wedges of Maridalen and Sørkedalen could be expanded north and widened.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Copenhagen followed a development of "fingers" stretching into the countryside as urban corridors, while preserving nearby open spaces. They could do that with Oslo as well, to relieve some of the pressure of population growth.


----------



## Galro

:jax: said:


> Roads have to be financed somehow. The percentage which is user-financed seems haphazard, negotiated project for project. The arguably most important infrastructure in Scandinavia, the link Malmö-Copenhagen, the "Channel Tunnel" which connects Norway/Sweden with Denmark/the continent, is 100% user-financed. The governments of Sweden and Danmark put in critically important loan guarantees, but no money.


That's only one road though. To what degree we use toll financing is completely unique in the world.


----------



## Suburbanist

How efficient is plate-recognition toll collection from foreign-plated cars?


----------



## Galro

Suburbanist said:


> How efficient is plate-recognition toll collection from foreign-plated cars?


I have never heard about problems surrounding it. What there are reported problems with however is getting the money after they have identified the cars.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

I have yet to receive my toll bill from my trip to Norway last month, but I've read it could take up to 6 months before you get the bill. 



Galro said:


> To what degree we use toll financing is completely unique in the world.


The Netherlands will use a similar financing structure for two new motorways, which will be partially funded through tolls. 

The most efficient way to fund transportation projects is through taxes. If you use private concessions, you also have to pay the market rate for interest, while tax collection is a cheaper way to finance projects (especially if the government would have a balanced budget). Another option is to use government loans and repay them with tolls like they do in Denmark. That way they can get cheap credit on the market.


----------



## Kjello0

They don't send a bill until it's gone 2 months or you've surpassed 500 NOK bill. Which ever comes first. But I guess it takes a few more months for foreigners to be tracked down.


----------



## Suburbanist

Are there parking lots and/or ferries in Norway that use the same technology of plate-recognition toll collection?


----------



## Galro

Suburbanist said:


> Are there parking lots and/or ferries in Norway that use the same technology of plate-recognition toll collection?


Not that I'm aware of.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

*E39, Bergen*

A video of E39 through Bergen.


----------



## Gsus

Galro said:


> I have never heard about problems surrounding it. What there are reported problems with however is getting the money after they have identified the cars.


Actually, there has been a bit of a problem identifying what conutry some license-plates are from. I remember reading some years ago that swedes who had'nt been to Norway in years was billed. It turned out it was Lithauanian (or Latvian) vehicles which has the same number of letters and digits that had passed. Guess that problem is solved now.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

A lot of activity here now 


Suburbanist said:


> Norway as a country is very sparsely populated. It has hundreds of mostly undisturbed forests and quiet fjords.
> 
> There is no need to fuss about losing a couple hundred hectares of forests in the south for development or going berserk over the amount of land taken over by paving new highway lanes. There is also no need to pack everyone up and high in central Oslo as if it were Hong Kong either (I'm not saying it shouldn't have high-rises, just that it shouldn't offer multi-family buildings as the only or primary options for city dwellers).


Not by any means a very densily populated country, Norwegians live more densily than you might realize, as in practice, most of the population live along a rather narrow strip of land along the coast of southern Norway up to Trondheim. Nevertheless, I do not think the discussion is about preserving forest for its own sake, but optimize the quality of living as well as keeping the overall health of the planet reasonably in mind. Quality of living for many Norwegians according to dominating public mindset is to have access to some sort of nature, a vivid urban environment, and minimizing the time used for commuting. For a city of the size of Oslo and above, this is simply not compatible with endless suburbia. After having lived in large cities dominated by suburbs in both the US and Australia, I must say that I share this opinion. However, as Jax interesting post pointed out, there are many ways in which a city like Oslo can be developed. Personally I believe a comprimize must be done in Oslo at some point where some of the forest has to go, taking just a few km of the forest will free huge areas. In my opinion, this should be done in a highly regulated and controlled manner, and in order to minimize travel needs, I would prefer forest fingers into the city to urban fingers into the forest. 




John Maynard said:


> Well, Living in Switzerland, which is considered to be the highest income country in the world, I must say that cost of living is similar, or even higher in Norway. But, purchasing power is on average higher in Switzerland. That's due to the fact that your country taxes heavily its inhabitants, so at the end they have available around half of their gross income, which gives an average net income comparable to that of Denmark - another "welfare state", but with lower cost of living.
> IMHO, they are not that rich on average when taking into consideration cost of living, taxes, plus "unique" system of tolls for so small cities (by international comparison).
> Deviating a little off topic, I have question:
> Is the health care system totally free for residents/citizens (that's mean you don't have to pay anything when visiting a doctor)?
> Are they lots of people on welfare?


IMO, a good way of measuring the income of a country is GDP per capita based on purchasing power parity (PPP). In most of such rankings, Norway is about 20 % higher than Switzerland. I am not big fan of the Norwegian tax system, and would like to go more in the direction of Switzerland, but it should be pointed out that the Norwegian level of income taxation is not particularly high compared with the rest of Europe, and less than for instance Denmark as you mention:








Norway has quite high taxes on tobacco, alcohole, and cars (the latter again beaten by Denmark). Of course, that more tax is paid does not necessarily less welfare for the people if they pay for public services, so again I come back to that GDP per capita based on purchasing power parity (PPP) is a sensible metrics.



Suburbanist said:


> I wonder if Norway is 2nd in Europe on a rank of total length of road tunnels (Italy is first for sure)


Last time I checked, Norway had 1060 county and national road tunnels, and also some municipal ones, but only 498 tunnels are longer than 500 m, and this category covers a length of 578 km. No clue what Italy or any other European country has. I think the total length of Norwegian hydropower tunnels is much larger.


Suburbanist said:


> Are there parking lots and/or ferries in Norway that use the same technology of plate-recognition toll collection?


Yes, at least Flakk-Rørvik ferry across the Trondheim fjord.

Btw, E16 was closed last week due to a landslide between Gudvangen and Stalheim:


----------



## Galro

54°26′S 3°24′E;115778413 said:


> and cars (the latter again beaten by Denmark).


Not completely true. Denmark have different taxation which tends to favor different attributes. This means that some cars are cheaper in Norway and some cars are cheaper in Denmark. Generally speaking, luxurious, powerful and expensive cars are slightly cheaper in Denmark while more "ordinary" cars tends to be cheaper here in Norway. And we have of course the tax incentives for evs too which makes them especially much cheaper. The taxation on the usage and ownership of cars is general lower in Denmark.


----------



## Stafangr

Galro said:


> Not completely true. Denmark have different taxation which tends to favor different attributes. This means that some cars are cheaper in Norway and some cars are cheaper in Denmark. Generally speaking, luxurious, powerful and expensive cars are slightly cheaper in Denmark while more "ordinary" cars tends to be cheaper here in Norway. And we have of course the tax incentives for evs too which makes them especially much cheaper. The taxation on the usage and ownership of cars is general lower in Denmark.


The same goes for alcohol. Expensive wines can be cheaper at _Vinmonopolet_ than in their country of origin, because they are mainly priced based on their level of alcohol.


----------



## muster

54°26′S 3°24′E;115778413 said:


> A lot of activity here now
> 
> Not by any means a very densily populated country, Norwegians live more densily than you might realize, as in practice, most of the population live along a rather narrow strip of land along the coast of southern Norway up to Trondheim. Nevertheless, I do not think the discussion is about preserving forest for its own sake, but optimize the quality of living as well as keeping the overall health of the planet reasonably in mind. Quality of living for many Norwegians according to dominating public mindset is to have access to some sort of nature, a vivid urban environment, and minimizing the time used for commuting. For a city of the size of Oslo and above, this is simply not compatible with endless suburbia. After having lived in large cities dominated by suburbs in both the US and Australia, I must say that I share this opinion. However, as Jax interesting post pointed out, there are many ways in which a city like Oslo can be developed. Personally I believe a comprimize must be done in Oslo at some point where some of the forest has to go, taking just a few km of the forest will free huge areas. In my opinion, this should be done in a highly regulated and controlled manner, and in order to minimize travel needs, I would prefer forest fingers into the city to urban fingers into the forest.



Actually, there is no need for any compromizes in Oslo, not in our lifetime at least. Ther is plenty of space within the already built up area to double the population. I'm thinking of areas along ringroad 3, Groruddalen, Ekeberg, fjordcity,Bærum, Asker, Nesodden, Lørenskog etc. Plenty of space :cheers:


----------



## essendon bombers

:jax: said:


> It is supposedly a fairly rare phenomena, mainly in parts of Northern Europe and even smaller parts of Northern America. Pulmonic ingressive
> 
> I have an impression it is more common among women than men, especially younger women, but I have no data to back that up, I could be wrong.



Thanks Jax, did not realise its common to northern Europe, even if fairly rarely found.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

*E16 Lærdal*

A video of E16 through the Lærdal Valley, it basically runs from near the Lærdal Tunnel to the Borlaug Tunnel.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

*Rv. 555 Bergen - Sotra*

A couple of photos of Riksvei 555 from Bergen to Sotra.

1. The interchange in Bergen where E16/E39 and Rv. 555 meet.

RV555-1 by Chriszwolle, on Flickr

2. Puddefjord Bridge, heading into the Damsgård Tunnel.

RV555-3 by Chriszwolle, on Flickr

3. Søreide.

RV555-6 by Chriszwolle, on Flickr

4. Whoops, got on the left lane for no reason. The right lane goes to Sotra too.

RV555-7 by Chriszwolle, on Flickr

5. Some construction for a new road to Flesland.

RV555-8 by Chriszwolle, on Flickr

6. Loddefjord

RV555-10 by Chriszwolle, on Flickr

7. This time Sotra goes via left lane only.

RV555-12 by Chriszwolle, on Flickr

8. Pretty overloaded stretch of road. On the way back there was a large backup.

RV555-14 by Chriszwolle, on Flickr

9. The Sotra Bridge (1971)

RV555-17 by Chriszwolle, on Flickr

10. End of the main express road.

RV555-18 by Chriszwolle, on Flickr


----------



## IceCheese

A lot of the signage could use an upgrade...


----------



## IceCheese

Video of a planned second tube to the Oslofjordtunnel, now on hearing:






The tunnel will ensure a continued increase of traffic on the most dangerous route in the country. As one can tell, Statens Vegvesen put a lot of focus on safety measures in the above video. That doesn't help you much though, when you're stuck 134 meters under the Oslofjord, 3 km (uphill!) from the nearest exist, in an inferno due to some semi with overheating brakes.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

*E16 Slomarka - Kongsvinger*

A helicopter tour of the new four-lane E16 from Slomarka to Kongsvinger in eastern Norway. The last part near Kongsvinger is already paved and marked.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Contracts were signed today for a 3.250 meter long undersea tunnel, part of Bjarkøyforbindelsen in Troms County. The island of Bjarkøy has 450 inhabitants.


----------



## Bjørne

ChrisZwolle said:


> Contracts were signed today for a 3.250 meter long undersea tunnel, part of Bjarkøyforbindelsen in Troms County. The island of Bjarkøy has 450 inhabitants.


I'm so freakin tired of these ridiculous political decisions. The island has 450 inhabitants (which will most likely drop to 200 within a year), and the project will cost 829 million kroners. That's 2 (4) million per inhabitant. The locals probably don't even want the tunnel. :bash:

[All of these allegations are based on earlier island connection projects.]


----------



## Suburbanist

Bjørne said:


> I'm so freakin tired of these ridiculous political decisions. The island has 450 inhabitants *(which will most likely drop to 200 within a year)*, and the project will cost 829 million kroners. That's 2 (4) million per inhabitant. The locals probably don't even want the tunnel. :bash:
> 
> [All of these allegations are based on earlier island connection projects.]


Why are such rapid populational decline expected? Some industry closing down?


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Bjørne said:


> The locals probably don't even want the tunnel. :bash:


There was a referendum in 2002 where 90% of the voters voted in favor of the project. 

I'm not sure if it is tolled, I believe it's funded by the county.


----------



## Kjello0

Suburbanist said:


> Why are such rapid populational decline expected? Some industry closing down?


Not at all. It's simply speculation from Bjørne.

However, studies have showed that these projects rarely stops the population decline.

What beats me with this project is the fact that this is a project connecting Bjarkøy and Sandøy with Grytøy. While Grytøy still isn't connected with the main land. So to reach the main land, they still have to take a ferry from Grytøy. I would think it would have been better to build a connection between the main land and Grytøy first. That would benefit more people. And most likely lead to increased population. The same study shows that connections in vicinity of cities tends to give increased population. Grytøy is just outside Harstad. The third largest city in Northern Norway.


----------



## Suburbanist

Small villages far away from larger places without a strong tourist trade or some special activity suffer from structural decline that no transportation link can address on itself.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Usually young adults move out for studies and then don't return if there is no employment they are looking for at that location. I agree a fixed link won't change that, but it does help to keep travel times reasonable and connections reliable - in all weather conditions. For some locations it makes the difference to being able to do a short trip into the nearest larger town or city what would have otherwise taken too much time to do frequently. 

This case is not alone. There are many (dozens) of bridges and tunnels that link to islands with a population of under 1,000 people.


----------



## Stafangr

^^
The alternative to _Bjarkøyforbindelsen_ would be a new ferry quay, with an estimated cost of 100-150 million NOK.

The connection was also precondition for _Bjarkøy kommune_ to merge with Harstad, according to this article.


----------



## Sunfuns

Suburbanist said:


> Small villages far away from larger places without a strong tourist trade or some special activity suffer from structural decline that no transportation link can address on itself.


Everyone knows this, but politicians are often reluctant to admit it publicly.


----------



## Suburbanist

Sunfuns said:


> Everyone knows this, but politicians are often reluctant to admit it publicly.


I think transportation projects to islands could be built. It is important to have access to different areas. But saying it will increase population or stop decline is often a misleading argument.

There are exceptions: if the new transportation link put a small struggling city/town within easy reach of a more dynamic center. So those projects around Bergen probably will help the communities there. The Øresünd bridge helped Malmo to turn around a lot (a bigger scale of the phenomenon). High-speed rail links in Spain have brought some vitality to once-withering places.

-------

Does anyone have current figures from traffic on E6 and Rv-17 over different sectors?


----------



## metasmurf

A new tunnel on RV70 between Sunndalsøra and Oppdøl will open the 15:th of August. It's currently the most landslide exposed piece of road in mid-Norway. It will replace shorter existing tunnels on this strech. 










Graphics: Statens Vegvesen


----------



## ChrisZwolle

*Askøy Bridge*

The Askøy Bridge is a fairly large suspension bridge (main span 850 meters) near Bergen. It connects the island of Askøy (24.000 inhabitants) with the rest of Bergen metropolitan area. It is the only fixed link to Askøy. The bridge carries about 18.000 vehicles per day. It opened in 1992 and is toll-free since 2006.

There is a small parking area on the south side of the bridge (southbound), but the view is obstructed by trees and stuff.

1. 

Askoy Bridge-1 by Chriszwolle, on Flickr

2. 

Askoy Bridge-2 by Chriszwolle, on Flickr

3. 

Askoy Bridge-3 by Chriszwolle, on Flickr

4. 

Askoy Bridge-4 by Chriszwolle, on Flickr


----------



## Ingenioren

Hoping for the Hardangerviddatunnel and more 2+1 trough Hallingdal for starters.


----------



## devo

The road between Oslo and Bergen has to go across Hardangervidda. It's the shortest, it connects the most populated areas of Norway, and the no-ferry E 39 in all directions will serve the entire west coast.
Still supporting the four+ options of crossing the mountain today would be like building four railways Oslo-Bergen in 1909.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

*E16 Oppland*

Tolling will commence on 8 December 2014 on the E16 between Bagn and Fønhus in western Oppland. 

http://www.e16oppland.no/

http://www.vegvesen.no/Om+Statens+vegvesen/Media/Siste+nyheter/Vis?key=703501


----------



## Hansadyret

Ingenioren said:


> Hoping for the Hardangerviddatunnel and *more 2+1 trough Hallingdal for starters*.


More of this would be nice:


----------



## devo

No, please stop. This is the product of trying to go four directions at the same time. The more investment on each of these mountain passes, the less reason for building one robust one. 

Don't misunderstand me. Rv. 7 towards Gol needs improvement. This 2+1 solution would be a reasonable solution when all the traffic towards Bergen has gone. So will a 2+1 road towards Fagernes. But the logical thing would be to build the proper road across the mountain first, to get the heavy truck traffic/buses and cross-mountain private traffic onto one road.


----------



## suburbicide

There's no such thing as a proper "2+1 road" in the Norwegian road standards. They're 1+1 (with intermittent passing lanes).


----------



## Hansadyret

ChrisZwolle said:


> The new Eikås Tunnel on E39 just north of Bergen. Reportedly there was already a traffic jam today.


Not surprising since the four lanes ends in a signal crossing just north of it.:lol:

This road have a ÅDT of about 20k wich is higher than E39 from Nesttun to Os who will soon start construction on four lane Svegatjørn-Rådal. 
Bergen municipal also have huge plans of more construction in the area wich will lead to even more traffic.

The traffic problems will not get much better until Nyborgtunnelen gets built.
And by the time that gets done the bridge will probably be to small


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

italystf said:


> Is Norway considering to build an intercity motorway network (at least in the south, between Oslo, Bergen, Stavanger, Trondheim and Alesund)?
> Are there plans to close the gap on the E6 south of Narvik, that is currently served by a ferry?


To supplement what has been already stated, the Norwegian government has pledged to make a national motorway plan. What that actually means in practice remains to see, but one of the two coalition partners has for a long time argued for a national network connecting the major cities. I believe clearly that, in addition to Oslo - Stavanger, Oslo - Trondheim is most ripe. The traffic volumes on Rv3 and E6 are on average higher than the east-west connections, and the investment costs are likely to be far less. When discussing intercity traffic volumes in Norway, one should remember that a lot of it currently goes by air. With a proper road network, a lot of non-business travel would be transferred.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

*110 km/h*

More 110 zones coming to Norway 


Eik – Hanekleiva (ca. 14 km)
Helland bru – Kopstad (ca 5 km)
Kopstad – Gulli (ca.14 km)
Gulli – Langåker (ca. 25 km)
Langåker – Bommestad (ca. 6,5 km)
Sky – Langgangen (ca. 11 km)
Solli – Årvoll (ca 16,5 km)
Årum v/Sarpsborg – tollstasjonen v/Svinesund (22 km)

On E6 and E18.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

*Ryfylke Tunnel, Stavanger*


----------



## ChrisZwolle

*E6 Nordnesfjellet*

A contract has been signed to construct a 5.8 kilometer long tunnel in E6 north of Skibotn in Troms. Construction will start in December, the tunnel will open to traffic in 2017. The tunnel allows the E6 to be cut short by 8 kilometers. The construction cost is 536.5 million kroner, or € 64.2 million. The tunnel will be toll-free.

http://www.vegvesen.no/Om+Statens+vegvesen/Media/Siste+nyheter/Vis?key=711100


----------



## Autoputevi kao hobi

Well that is a short time for souch a long tunnel.


----------



## Gsus

Autoputevi kao hobi said:


> Well that is a short time for souch a long tunnel.


Not really! With use of "drill and blast", which is by far the most common way here i Norway, an average blast makes the tunnel four meters longer in normal solid rock. Typically there are three blastings each day, which means 24 meters a day, if they work from two sides. 5800 meters devided by 24 is 241 days. Securing of the mountain is done for every blast. That is very "optimal", but not far from how it in most cases go. Then there is about two years left for completion of concrete-structures, the roadway, electrical systems and the rest. If they use "bypass-tunnels", which is not very common AFAIK, portals may be built while blasting, and masses is being transported out of of the bypass.

The Lærdal tunnel (24,5km) was built between 1995 and 2000 btw.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

It's much faster than the average tunnel project in Switzerland  

Blasting is a cost-efficient method. The electricity bill of a TBM is so huge you could construct a several kilometer long tunnel in Norway for that cost alone. Not to mention the cost of a TBM itself (often up to € 80 million).

The electricity cost for boring the Femern Belt Tunnel from Denmark to Germany with a tunnel boring machine was projected to be in excess of € 120 million.


----------



## Suburbanist

^^ Doesn't Norway have problems with water table on tunnels? That might be a major issue of extensive use of blasting. Usually blasting is only used on hard rock (obvious reasons). Mountains formed by subduction (like the Alps) are usually risky places to use blasting as a tunneling method. All that pressing weakens certain parts of the rock mass and it can collapse quickly if something goes wrong (I think something went wrong in a Swiss would-be tunnel south of Bern, and the hwole project was abandoned when the place flooded and couldn't be stabilized).


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Some tunnels do have fogging problems. Many tunnels are just bare rock, but some have treated walls to prevent water seepage.


----------



## Ingenioren

They are treated with polyetylen and spray-on concrete.


----------



## devo

And previously other exciting stuff, like Rhoca-Gil.


----------



## Schweden

I drove from Gothenburg to Arendal a couple of months ago, and iirc there was a stretch on E18 where you couldn't overtake for like 50 km or something like that. And on the new motorway stretches there were tolls every 5 km or so. Since then I don't feel as bad driving on a Swedish 2+1 road, lol.


----------



## Shifty2k5

Schweden said:


> I drove from Gothenburg to Arendal a couple of months ago, and iirc there was a stretch on E18 where you couldn't overtake for like 50 km or something like that. And on the new motorway stretches there were tolls every 5 km or so. Since then I don't feel as bad driving on a Swedish 2+1 road, lol.


How much are the tolls?


----------



## ChrisZwolle

See the Autopass map

'every 5 km or so' is a bit of an exaggeration


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

ChrisZwolle said:


> Some tunnels do have fogging problems. Many tunnels are just bare rock, but some have treated walls to prevent water seepage.


Bare rock is no longer allowed on new tunnels, mostly to reduce the danger of (small) falling rocks. The average rock quality in Norway is fairly good on average, which is why blasting can be used so much, but mapping and surveying the geology is of course a very important task of any tunnel project.


----------



## devo

Isn't this why the new E 16 over Sollihøgda now costs 600 MNOK more? Because surveying has uncovered poor rock quality? It's perhaps better to know the budget overrun beforehand.


----------



## Hansadyret

Results of the geological surveys in the Rogfast project are positive. They only found rock of good quality for tunnel building.


----------



## Ingenioren

Schweden said:


> I drove from Gothenburg to Arendal a couple of months ago, and iirc there was a stretch on E18 where you couldn't overtake for like 50 km or something like that. And on the new motorway stretches there were tolls every 5 km or so. Since then I don't feel as bad driving on a Swedish 2+1 road, lol.


Next time you're better off using Strömstad - Sandefjord, a lot cheaper that the drive.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

There are major traffic disruptions in western Norway. E16 is closed at two stretches due to flooding and rockslides. E136 is closed near Rauma due to a possible major rockslide. The mountain in question is part of the Troll Wall, the highest vertical rock wall in Europe. The lake at Voss has flooded to levels not seen since the 19th century.


----------



## MattiG

ChrisZwolle said:


> There are major traffic disruptions in western Norway. E16 is closed at two stretches due to flooding and rockslides. E136 is closed near Rauma due to a possible major rockslide. The mountain in question is part of the Troll Wall, the highest vertical rock wall in Europe. The lake at Voss has flooded to levels not seen since the 19th century.


E136 is open. The authorities are prepared to close it in a very short notice.


----------



## Rob73

Schweden said:


> I drove from Gothenburg to Arendal a couple of months ago, and iirc there was a stretch on E18 where you couldn't overtake for like 50 km or something like that. And on the new motorway stretches there were tolls every 5 km or so. Since then I don't feel as bad driving on a Swedish 2+1 road, lol.


If you drive from Trondheim the south there is only 1 passing lane before Lilliehamer, and a very odd stretch of 4 lane which is about 500m long before Oppdall, going North from Lilliehamer there is only one passing lane on the hill up to Dombås and the aforementioned 4 lane outside Oppdal until you reach Trondheim, Norway doesn't believe in safe passing they would rather you risk life and limb passing or stay stuck behind farmer Ola in his tractor, mum and dad Norman towing a camping vogen or bobil. Long distance driving in Norway is not recommended. My recommendation is if you have to do it start out very early in the morning or drive through the night. 

Thinking about the odd little 500 or so metre stretch of 4 lane North of Oppdal, does anyone know the reason for this?


----------



## Rob73

Schweden said:


> I drove from Gothenburg to Arendal a couple of months ago, and iirc there was a stretch on E18 where you couldn't overtake for like 50 km or something like that. And on the new motorway stretches there were tolls every 5 km or so. Since then I don't feel as bad driving on a Swedish 2+1 road, lol.


If you drive from Trondheim the south there is only 1 passing lane before Lilliehamer, and a very odd stretch of 4 lane which is about 500m long before Oppdall, going North from Lilliehamer there is only one passing lane on the hill up to Dombas and the aforementioned 4 lane outside Oppdal until you reach Trondheim, Norway doesn't believe in safe passing they would rather you risk life and limb passing or stay stuck behind farmer Ola in his tractor, mum and dad Norman towing a camping vogen or bobil. Long distanbce driving in Norway is not recommended. My recommendation is if you have to do it start out very early in the morning or drive through the night. 

Does anyone know the reason for the odd 500 or so metre stretch of 4 lane North of Oppdal?


----------



## Gsus

Rob73 said:


> If you drive from Trondheim the south there is only 1 passing lane before Lilliehamer, and a very odd stretch of 4 lane which is about 500m long before Oppdall, going North from Lilliehamer there is only one passing lane on the hill up to Dombas and the aforementioned 4 lane outside Oppdal until you reach Trondheim, Norway doesn't believe in safe passing they would rather you risk life and limb passing or stay stuck behind farmer Ola in his tractor, mum and dad Norman towing a camping vogen or bobil. Long distanbce driving in Norway is not recommended. My recommendation is if you have to do it start out very early in the morning or drive through the night.
> 
> Does anyone know the reason for the odd 500 or so metre stretch of 4 lane North of Oppdal?


Well, there are a few more actually. The first miles (scandinavian) north of Lillehammer there are some passing lanes in each direction with a lenght of about 1,5 km each. Also, there is a passing lane northbound from Dombås up to Dovrefjell, in addition to the one you describe.

In Trøndelag theres no four-lane stretch south of Melhus, but theres a southbound passing lane for a couple of kilometers somewhere between Støren and Oppdal. If there were a four-laner there, the reason would most probably be passing.

And I agree with you that Norway is a country where driving is an at-all-time game with the death. Probably the most dangerous traffic in the world! Farmers with a hay-fork on their tractor who on purpose drive into poor tourists in a Yaris. In addition, everything else here i completely messed up by socialist politicians... Thinking about emigrating soon. Maybe to New Zealand or something......


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Gsus said:


> Probably the most dangerous traffic in the world!


Norway had 29 traffic fatalities per 1 million inhabitants in 2012, which would put it in the top 3 safest countries in the world.


----------



## Gsus

ChrisZwolle said:


> Norway had 29 traffic fatalities per 1 million inhabitants in 2012, which would put it in the top 3 safest countries in the world.


I know. Just a little joke to top it ;-)


----------



## Rob73

ChrisZwolle said:


> Norway had 29 traffic fatalities per 1 million inhabitants in 2012, which would put it in the top 3 safest countries in the world.


This is probably due to the incredibly slow speeds we drive at. Ever noticed Norwegian registered vehicles on European motorways, most are driven below the posted speed limit. Norwegian drivers are scared of speed, many are afraid to drive 80kph on a hot sunny day without a cloud in the sky, when the rain come 80kph quickly turn to 60kph.

Better roads with central divides and frequent passing lanes would make driving more pleasurable.


----------



## Rob73

Gsus said:


> Well, there are a few more actually. The first miles (scandinavian) north of Lillehammer there are some passing lanes in each direction with a lenght of about 1,5 km each. Also, there is a passing lane northbound from Dombås up to Dovrefjell, in addition to the one you describe.
> 
> In Trøndelag theres no four-lane stretch south of Melhus, but theres a southbound passing lane for a couple of kilometers somewhere between Støren and Oppdal. If there were a four-laner there, the reason would most probably be passing.
> 
> And I agree with you that Norway is a country where driving is an at-all-time game with the death. Probably the most dangerous traffic in the world! Farmers with a hay-fork on their tractor who on purpose drive into poor tourists in a Yaris. In addition, everything else here i completely messed up by socialist politicians... Thinking about emigrating soon. Maybe to New Zealand or something......


The four lane is a few KM's before Oppdal on a corner, it a surprise when you get to is.

You get my point in several hundred KM of road there are only two proper passing zones North and South, this is not good enough, we have the money, we should spend it improving infrastructure, and I mean real tangible projects which benefit the majority of people not these pork barrel projects which cost a lot of money and benefit few.


----------



## Suburbanist

If Norway builds tunnels like crazy, why not fix these less-than-2-lane-wide bottlenecks (literally)?


----------



## Gsus

Rob73 said:


> The four lane is a few KM's before Oppdal on a corner, it a surprise when you get to is.
> 
> You get my point in several hundred KM of road there are only two proper passing zones North and South, this is not good enough, we have the money, we should spend it improving infrastructure, and I mean real tangible projects which benefit the majority of people not these pork barrel projects which cost a lot of money and benefit few.


I'm pretty sure it's just 2+1, but I'm not gonna argue on that. 

Yes, I unserstood your point, but fact is as Chris writes. Norway has the third lowest road-death per capita in the world, and that is a very positive thing IMO.

I agree tho, that we have a long way to go before Norway has a modern and effecient transportation-network.


----------



## Ingenioren

Rob73 said:


> The four lane is a few KM's before Oppdal on a corner, it a surprise when you get to is.
> 
> You get my point in several hundred KM of road there are only two proper passing zones North and South, this is not good enough, we have the money, we should spend it improving infrastructure, and I mean real tangible projects which benefit the majority of people not these pork barrel projects which cost a lot of money and benefit few.


The projects you speak of is already becomming reality in Trøndelag, 30km motorway and 40km 2+1. (2023) and Gudbrandsdalen, 50km 2+1 (2020.)


----------



## IceCheese

Rob73 said:


> This is probably due to the incredibly slow speeds we drive at. Ever noticed Norwegian registered vehicles on European motorways, most are driven below the posted speed limit. Norwegian drivers are scared of speed, many are afraid to drive 80kph on a hot sunny day without a cloud in the sky, when the rain come 80kph quickly turn to 60kph.
> 
> Better roads with central divides and frequent passing lanes would make driving more pleasurable.


Man, I wish I had remembered to do this last time I was driving overseas! hno:


----------



## Rob73

IceCheese said:


> Man, I wish I had remembered to do this last time I was driving overseas! hno:


You're probably young, next time you go on a car ferry watch the mama og papa and their bil full of barne when they get onto the motorway's in Danmark or Kiel.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

Gsus said:


> I'm pretty sure it's just 2+1, but I'm not gonna argue on that.


Definitely 2+1. Don't really agree on Rob's point regarding Norwegian drivers abroad either, after all, the people getting that far are the ones who like to drive ;-). However, there is no doubt that Norwegian roads have a long way to go, and still scores of short-sighted decisions are being made.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

Gsus said:


> Well, there are a few more actually. The first miles (scandinavian) north of Lillehammer there are some passing lanes in each direction with a lenght of about 1,5 km each. Also, there is a passing lane northbound from Dombås up to Dovrefjell, in addition to the one you describe.
> 
> In Trøndelag theres no four-lane stretch south of Melhus, but theres a southbound passing lane for a couple of kilometers somewhere between Støren and Oppdal. If there were a four-laner there, the reason would most probably be passing.
> 
> And I agree with you that Norway is a country where driving is an at-all-time game with the death. Probably the most dangerous traffic in the world! Farmers with a hay-fork on their tractor who on purpose drive into poor tourists in a Yaris. In addition, everything else here i completely messed up by socialist politicians... Thinking about emigrating soon. Maybe to New Zealand or something......


Except tourists, Rv3 is the dominating route Trondheim - Oslo. No passing lanes Melhus - Stange.... 360 km (36 Scandinavian miles ;-) ) 

Correction: Northbound, I believe there is still a passing lane south of Løten.... 345 km then. 

And, for those of you that didn't get it, Gsus was slightly ironic /sarcastic in his last paragraph....


----------



## Ingenioren

But not from Lillehammer, there are quite a few who follow the destination signs in good faith aswell since Vegvesen has found it more sensible to sign a small village of 2500 people over 200km away. When there is an expressway to Otta it might become the faster option tough.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Tolling on Askøy (island) near Bergen starts tomorrow. There will be 4 toll gantries on the main roads on the southern part of the island. The Askøy Bridge will remain toll-free (it was paid off in 2006).

http://www.askoypakken.no/


----------



## ChrisZwolle

*E18, Oslo*

Some photos of E18 from Oslo to Sandvika. A short stretch with 2x3 lanes.


E18-1 by Chriszwolle, on Flickr


E18-2 by Chriszwolle, on Flickr


E18-3 by Chriszwolle, on Flickr


E18-4 by Chriszwolle, on Flickr


E18-5 by Chriszwolle, on Flickr


E18-6 by Chriszwolle, on Flickr


E18-7 by Chriszwolle, on Flickr


E18-8 by Chriszwolle, on Flickr


E18-9 by Chriszwolle, on Flickr


E18-10 by Chriszwolle, on Flickr


----------



## JayCube

54°26′S 3°24′E;118625163 said:


> Except tourists, Rv3 is the dominating route Trondheim - Oslo. No passing lanes Melhus - Stange.... 360 km (36 Scandinavian miles ;-) )
> 
> Correction: Northbound, I believe there is still a passing lane south of Løten.... 345 km then.
> 
> And, for those of you that didn't get it, Gsus was slightly ironic /sarcastic in his last paragraph....


Well, I drive often Trpndheim-Elverum, 350km in 4.5 hour with no breaks. The passing of trailers and slow cars is not a problem as the traffic is low (exept in trøndelag where rv3 and e6 meets).


----------



## tomPunk

ChrisZwolle, and that stretch there (E18 Oslo-Sandvika) is among those in the Oslo region in most need of an upgrade... Actually one could say all the way to Drammen, but the stretch from Oslo to Sandvika is definitely the "worst" of it, in terms of not being ready for the future and the amount of traffic one can expect there.


----------



## IceCheese

^^There is a brand new railroad, though. If they got more people to use the train during rush, much of the traffic problems could be avoided. I would say Ring 3 is more disastrous.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Near Rjukan in Telemark....


----------



## Autoputevi kao hobi

That is a container ?


----------



## suburbicide

New technical brochure about the Hålogaland bridge:

http://www.vegvesen.no/_attachment/...d+bridge+technical+brochure+print+version.pdf


----------



## MichiH

Gsus said:


> E16 Slomarka-Kongsvinger: 16,5km of four-lane expressway (16,5m wide). Construction started in 2011, and the new road will *open this fall*. The project is divided in three contracts, where Veidekke has two of the contracts, while Skanska has the long bridge (and connecting roads) near the end of the video.
> 
> E6 Minnesund-Labbdalen: 21km motorway (21m wide). Construction started in late 2011, and is *scheduled to open in november this year* (except for the longest tunnel, which will open during the spring of 2015).


Is there still any motorway opening expected until end of 2014?



MichiH said:


> *E6:* Labbdalen – Korslund 12 17km (2012 to November 2014) – project – map
> *E6:* Langset – Minnesund 12 2km (2012 to November 2014) – project – map
> *E16:* Slomarka – Kongsvinger 12 16.5km (2011 to Fall 2014) – project – map


Any updated info about the completion of this projects?


----------



## Gsus

MichiH said:


> Is there still any motorway opening expected until end of 2014?


Everything on E6 Minnesund - Labbdalen except the Korslund tunnel, and the adjacent roads will be opened 13th of december.

I´m uncertain excactly when the rest will open. All I´ve heard is sometime during spring 2015.



MichiH said:


> Any updated info about the completion of this projects?


E16 Slomarka-Kongsvinger will be opened november 27th.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

*Oslofjord Bridge*

A render of the possible Oslofjord Bridge. It doesn't state any dimensions, but when measuring it in Google Earth, the main span would be around 1600 - 1700 meters, which could make it the second-longest suspension bridge in the world.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

*Hardangerfjord panoramas*

1. Hardangerfjord from near Eidfjord.

Hardangerfjord-2 by Chriszwolle, on Flickr

2. Hardangerfjord from a rest area along fylkesvei 7 between Granvik and Norheimsund.

Hardangerfjord by Chriszwolle, on Flickr

3. Also along fylkesvei 7.

Hardangerfjord-4 by Chriszwolle, on Flickr


----------



## Rob73

Møreaksen

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7V1g0QN2qKk

More here http://www.rbnett.no/nyheter/article10348475.ece


----------



## ChrisZwolle

The government has approved the Bodø city package. It includes a 2.8 km long twin-tube, four-lane tunnel that will be completed in 2018.

http://www.vegvesen.no/Om+Statens+vegvesen/Media/Siste+nyheter/Vis?key=729075


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

Rob73 said:


> Møreaksen
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7V1g0QN2qKk
> 
> More here http://www.rbnett.no/nyheter/article10348475.ece


I am quite impressed, they actually plan to make the Julsundet bridge (as well as the tunnel) with four lanes, but maybe not the connecting roads? In any case, it is an improvement from previous short-sightedness. The bridge will be 1 950 meter long, with a main span of 1 650 m, i.e. longer than Storebælt, so I guess the added torsional stiffness from the increase in width compared with the youtube video is helpful.

PS: Anybody aware of the current timetable for the rest of the Møre og Romsdal E39-aspirations (south and north of Møre-aksen) to make a real "samlet fylke" (=united county)?


----------



## Gsus

54°26′S 3°24′E;119224045 said:


> I am quite impressed, they actually plan to make the Julsundet bridge (as well as the tunnel) with four lanes, but maybe not the connecting roads? In any case, it is an improvement from previous short-sightedness. The bridge will be 1 950 meter long, with a main span of 1 650 m, i.e. longer than Storebælt, so I guess the added torsional stiffness from the increase in width compared with the youtube video is helpful.
> 
> PS: Anybody aware of the current timetable for the rest of the Møre og Romsdal E39-aspirations (south and north of Møre-aksen) to make a real "samlet fylke" (=united county)?


You`re right earlier plans was based on two-lane roads except for the bridge and tunnel. But the road administration has concluded now that connecting roads will be getting four lanes also, according to the newest planning-document at the strart of the regulation-pfase.

http://www.vegvesen.no/Europaveg/e39romsdalsfjorden/nyhetsarkiv/varsel-om-regulering-e39-ålesundmolde-parsell-vik-julbøen

Look at the first document under "Last ned", if you can have it translated.


----------



## pedrofil

Good to see the Møre & Romsdal big cities are finally getting a solid connection, will make the region a lot more attractive, both to commercial interests and for people. Would hope for improved train connections too, but that is maybe a bit too far fetched at this stage. 

Btw: Vegvesenet just released some nice concept videos for the Svegatjørn-Rådal (Rådal/Nordås/Fana - Os), worth a check, especially the last video. Edit: The first is the one I find the most interesting!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOgr_mLtMiY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIflP9KY-q0


----------



## Ingenioren

The speed limits signed in the video are wrong. It's 80km/h in the Os end, and the new road will have 100km/h or possibly even 110km/h.


----------



## pedrofil

True. From what's been signaled i hope and believe they will build it for 110km/h. They say so in this article at least:

http://www.nrk.no/hordaland/klart-for-ny-vei-fra-bergen-til-os-1.11928731


----------



## Hansadyret

Some new animations of the project Svegatjørn-Rådal (Os-Bergen). Building is scheduled to start next year. Cost: about 800 million Euros.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

*Fv. 78 Toven Tunnel*

The Toven Tunnel opens to traffic today. It is a 10,665 meter long single tube tunnel. It is the longest tunnel in northern Norway. It is also a toll road, with a toll of 85 kr starting tomorrow.


----------



## Gsus

10 of the 22 km of new E6 between Minnesund and Labbdalen will get traffic on all four lanes during next week. Speed limits will be set at 70 and 80 km/h until december 13th, when the speed limit will be set up to 100 km/h, as 8 more kilometers open.

http://www.h-a.no/nyheter/naa-aapner-10-kilometer-med-ny-e6-langs-mjosa

When Korslund - Langset opens in june next year, the speed limit is raised to 110 km/h on E6 between Berger (some 25 km north-east of downtown Oslo) and Kolomoen (80 km).


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Toven Tunnel is actually 107 kilometers long


----------



## bigic

They forgot to put a comma? 

Послато са ZTE Blade Q Mini уз помоћ Тапатока


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Does anyone know if they opened E6 yesterday?

http://www.h-a.no/nyheter/naa-aapner-10-kilometer-med-ny-e6-langs-mjosa


----------



## ChrisZwolle

16.5 km of four-lane E16 open to traffic on Thursday.

_Torsdag 27.november kl.12.00 åpnes 16,5 km med ny firefelts motorveg gjennom Sør-Odal og Kongsvinger kommuner._

http://www.bygg.no/article/1217466


----------



## Gsus

A short video of the planned expansion of E6 east of Trondheim. This is the first section, between Ranheim and Reitan, which is planned to commence during 2018, or later.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXkua4j-yvI&list=UUU6RULbViSsifBxpzYM8sAQ


----------



## Nikolaj

ChrisZwolle said:


> 16.5 km of four-lane E16 open to traffic on Thursday.
> 
> _Torsdag 27.november kl.12.00 åpnes 16,5 km med ny firefelts motorveg gjennom Sør-Odal og Kongsvinger kommuner._
> 
> http://www.bygg.no/article/1217466


According to this article http://www.glomdalen.no/nyheter/article7711597.ece we are not talking about a motorway (motorveg) but a motortrafikkveg, which can best translated to expressway. 16,5 m width does sound terrible narrow for a motorway.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Yes, they have a video which shows motortrafikkvei signs.


----------



## Bjørne

Nikolaj said:


> According to this article http://www.glomdalen.no/nyheter/article7711597.ece we are not talking about a motorway (motorveg) but a motortrafikkveg, which can best translated to expressway. 16,5 m width does sound terrible narrow for a motorway.


What exactly makes this road (and other similar roads) a motortrafikkveg and not a motorveg? Is it just the speed limit?


----------



## Kjello0

Width only. This road is only 16,5 meters wide. While the minimum demand for a motorway is 20 meters in the new Håndbok N100. While it was 19 meters in the old Håndbok 17.

Of course, if it was a motorway. It would have been built with a 100 km/h speed limit. Which would then have demanded more straight curves.


----------



## Suburbanist

Is the soil on northernmost Norway permafrost or not?


----------



## ChrisZwolle

_I Norge er det typisk permafrost i høyfjellet og på Svalbard._

http://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permafrost

Only in the mountains and on Svalbard according to Norwegian Wikipedia. Presumably the Gulf Stream keeps northern Norway warm enough to lack permafrost.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

*E16 Fagernes - Hønefoss*

The new 10.2 km stretch of E16 between Fønhus and Bagn will open to traffic on 8 December 2014. They modernized the road and built a 710 meter long tunnel. 

http://www.vegvesen.no/Om+Statens+vegvesen/Media/Siste+nyheter/Vis?key=737969


----------



## Autoputevi kao hobi

When we can expect motorway fully completed between Sandvika and Hønefoss ?
The road which is connecting those 2 cities is the bussiest 2-lane road in Norway with 30.000 vehicles daily.


----------



## Gsus

Autoputevi kao hobi said:


> When we can expect motorway fully completed between Sandvika and Hønefoss ?
> The road which is connecting those 2 cities is the bussiest 2-lane road in Norway with 30.000 vehicles daily.


Only a couple of kilometers in Sandvika has an AADT with those numbers. The rest has about 10 000 daily vehicles, with some higher numbers near Hønefoss.

For the section with 30 000 daily vehicles, it is scheduled for completion in 2019. The rest of the road too Hønefoss, no one knows. The section between Sollihøgda and Hønefoss is being planned together with a new railway line, and environmentalists is making a lot of noise. Don´t think we´ll se it finished on this side of the next ten years.


----------



## MichiH

Gsus said:


> 10 of the 22 km of new E6 between Minnesund and Labbdalen will get traffic on all four lanes during next week. Speed limits will be set at 70 and 80 km/h until december 13th, when the speed limit will be set up to 100 km/h, as 8 more kilometers open.
> http://www.h-a.no/nyheter/naa-aapner-10-kilometer-med-ny-e6-langs-mjosa





ChrisZwolle said:


> Does anyone know if they opened E6 yesterday?
> http://www.h-a.no/nyheter/naa-aapner-10-kilometer-med-ny-e6-langs-mjosa


Has it been opened on schedule?

*E6:* Skaberud – Labdalen 12 8km (2012 to 24th November 2014) – project – map
*E6:* Langset – Minnesund 12 2km (2012 to 27th November 2014) – project – map


----------



## ChrisZwolle

According to Statens Vegvesen:

_I midten av desember åpner firefelts E6 med midtdeler på vel 18 av 21 kilometer langs sørlige deler av Mjøsa. _

http://www.vegvesen.no/Europaveg/e6gardermoenbiri/

It is also announced that tolling begins on 15 December, so perhaps it will be open then: http://www.vegvesen.no/Europaveg/e6gardermoenbiri/Nyhetsarkiv/ny-bomstasjon-settes-i-drift-på-e6


----------



## Gsus

MichiH said:


> Has it been opened on schedule?
> 
> *E6:* Skaberud – Labdalen 12 8km (2012 to 24th November 2014) – project – map
> *E6:* Langset – Minnesund 12 2km (2012 to 27th November 2014) – project – map


http://www.eub.no/nyheter/neste-lrdag-pner-statsrden-uferdig-e6

"_To kilometer ny motorveg fra Minnesund til Ørbekk, og omtrent åtte kilometer i Stange ble satt under trafikk denne uka. Dermed er omtrent halvparten av strekningen som nå skal åpnes, allerede i drift_"

According to this article the two southernmost, and the eight northern kilometers opened this week as announced.


----------



## Stafangr

From the Ryfast-thread. Btw, there is also a huge construction site between Våland and Mosvatnet, at the Ryfast-tunnel and the Eiganes-tunnel's south end, which is not in this post.



Nguen77 said:


> *Ryfast update nov 27*
> 
> 
> *Hundvåg*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Photo: Skydrone/Statens vegvesen
> 
> *Solbakk*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Photo: Skydrone/Statens vegvesen
> 
> *Buøy*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Photo: Skydrone/Statens vegvesen
> 
> *Tasta*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Photo: Skydrone/Statens vegvesen
> 
> Source: http://www.vegvesen.no/Vegprosjekter/ryfast/Nyhetsarkiv/dronebilder-fra-anleggene


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

Gsus said:


> A short video of the planned expansion of E6 east of Trondheim. This is the first section, between Ranheim and Reitan, which is planned to commence during 2018, or later.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXkua4j-yvI&list=UUU6RULbViSsifBxpzYM8sAQ


Still planned as a motortrafikkveg, i.e. not full motorway :-(


----------



## maarteen

Hi Guys..

i just wondering will there any border in between Norway and Sweden ? or they just Tull? 
Normally they will just search your car? 
Normally they will only stop swedish car for searching?
As i going to cross the border in-between Norway and Sweden for my first time


----------



## pedrofil

Haha.. Are you be worried? 

Norway is a part of the Schengen-agreement so you can pass w/o passport or even stopping your car. However customs do occasionally perform controls, but this is as far as I know pretty rare (unless you have a suspicious looking van or something). Also, from what I have heard they do tend to "discriminate" license plates from certain countries, and wave you over for a control, but I can't confirm this. I assume you are talking about the Svinesund-border?

I recommend not having anything illegal in your car or bringing too much booze/tobacco  

Check out this web page if you are curious: http://www.toll.no/en/international/english/shopping-abroad/alcohol-and-tobacco-quotas/

Welcome, and I hope you have a great stay! 

(PS: Been awake for 30 hours straight writing an essay, so my reply is probably not the best )


----------



## maarteen

pedrofil said:


> Haha.. Are you be worried?
> 
> Norway is a part of the Schengen-agreement so you can pass w/o passport or even stopping your car. However customs do occasionally perform controls, but this is as far as I know pretty rare (unless you have a suspicious looking van or something). Also, from what I have heard they do tend to "discriminate" license plates from certain countries, and wave you over for a control, but I can't confirm this. I assume you are talking about the Svinesund-border?
> 
> I recommend not having anything illegal in your car or bringing too much booze/tobacco
> 
> Check out this web page if you are curious: http://www.toll.no/en/international/english/shopping-abroad/alcohol-and-tobacco-quotas/
> 
> 
> Welcome, and I hope you have a great stay!
> 
> (PS: Been awake for 30 hours straight writing an essay, so my reply is probably not the best )


Thanks for advice  i am having a Swedish license plate car now...
because it was my first time crossing swedish norway border 
norway was not part of EU...so i thought they will have border check or something...so i need to prepare my car clean and tidy lol


----------



## ChrisZwolle

New (former?) E16 at Sandvika, an edge city of Oslo. As reported before, this road is the busiest two-lane road in Norway with up to 30,000 vehicles per day.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Ryfylke Tunnel progress:


----------



## ElviS77

About an hour's drive north of Oslo: Fv 33 closed until further notice due to rocks falling on the road. Fv 33 is a fairly important regional road, as it is the shortest and most obvious connection between the Gjøvik area and Oslo Airport.

http://www.rb.no/lokale_nyheter/article7723158.ece (In Norwegian)


----------



## devo

ChrisZwolle said:


> New (former?) E16 at Sandvika, (...)


Not former, still E 16. They could have called it Rv. 7. But that would have made E 16 go in only one direction, which would have made sense. It's not supposed to make sense.


----------



## Gsus

http://www.vegvesen.no/***/Publikasjoner/Handboker/nyheter/motorveger-i-norge

The brain behind N100 (the bible for designing roads in Norway) raises questions whether Norway has a too low AADT for planning and construction of motorways, which today is at 12 000. A report from the Norwegian University of Science and Technology suggests 15 000 is a more natural number.

Pre 2010 the numbers was 15 000 for government roads without trunk-road status, and 12 000 for trunk-roads. The same year most of the government roads was given away to the counties, by some speculated just to make sure the counties still have something to work with.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

I wouldn't use those numbers too strictly. 12.000 vehicles per day is a fairly busy road, and 15.000+ is an unpleasant busy road (lots of columns). However, it should consider whether an expansion has a favorable cost-benefit ratio. Some short busy stretch may not be worth widening if it involves an exorbitant cost, while other, less busy sections could be cheap to widen to four lanes. 

15.000 is acceptable in urban areas, but less so in rural areas.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

NRK has a section dedicated to news reports about foreign truckers causing trouble on the northern wintry roads.

http://www.nrk.no/emne/-utenlandske-vogntog-pa-vinterveier-_nordland_-1.11368997


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Most of E6 along the southern arm of Lake Mjøsa opened to traffic yesterday.

http://www.bygg.no/article/1220161

The article says there is 2 km of E6 remaining due to the bankruptcy of Alpine Bau, which will open in early 2015.

The article says 18 km (Vegvesen says 20 km) opened to traffic, but I think some of it was already opened two weeks ago?


----------



## suburbicide

E6 Minnesund-Labbdalen was officially opened to traffic yesterday. 4 km of the 22 km section is not yet completed (delayed due to the bankruptcy of a contractor) and will open next summer. 























































Source: http://www.bygg.no/article/1220161?image=dp-image58554-1220162


----------



## JuaanAcosta

sorry but those guardrails look awful


----------



## [atomic]

I think that's a layer of oxide to prevent rust.


----------



## IceCheese

It's not to prevent rust, it IS rust. But yes, it will protect the material under it. I guess the choice is esthetic as well. The brown color blends much better with the surroundings, almost looks like wood  The whole Gardermoen - Biri will have it when done, like it or not


----------



## Coccodrillo

^^ It's the so called weatehring steel/corten steel: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weathering_steel


----------



## suburbicide

The weathering steel has been used for aesthetic reasons, to make the guard rails blend in with the environment. I like them, but they've proven to be short-lasting. Water collects in the joints and they rust away. Road salt does not help the matter.


----------



## Sunfuns

Coccodrillo said:


> Still they are bought, and this means that their limit in other countries is economical, not technical.


I think it's still a bit of a mixed bag albeit improving rapidly. A range and charging time is still an issue. More importantly charging stations are scarce in most areas.


----------



## italystf

Suburbanist said:


> Is there a network of charging stations along *E16* and Rv17 that allows travelling on electrical cars to places like Mo i Rana, Bodø or Trondheim?


You probably mean E6. That's the very long road to the remote North. E16 goes W-E from Bergen to Oslo and then to Sweden.
Anyway, according to the map, Kirkeness seem still out-of-reach for electrical vehicles.
Moreover, the lack of charging stations in other European countries is surely a limit to the diffusion of electric cars in Norway. Many people consider that they will drive abroad when they buy a car.


----------



## Suburbanist

I was taking a look at Tesla website and, apparently, they will be deploying many superchargers over Europe this next spring.


----------



## Bjørne

italystf said:


> Interesting data. I didn't know that electric\hybrid cars were so popular in Norway (or in any country). A proof that electric vehicles for mainstream market are already a viable option.
> Also the share of cars with automatic trasmission is very high for being an European country, in Italy is around 10%.


Automatic transmission results in lower emissions, so it's a bit cheaper in Norway.
Also, it is a smaller percentage of the total price of the car compared to other European countries, due to already high car prices here in Norway. So I guess most people choose it because it gives a better driving experience for just a few thousand kroners.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Bjørne said:


> Automatic transmission results in lower emissions, so it's a bit cheaper in Norway.


Hmm, cars with automatic transmission tend to be heavier, resulting in more CO2 emissions per kilometer compared to manual transmission. In the Netherlands that means higher car purchase tax and higher road tax.


----------



## MattiG

verreme said:


> No Volvos sold in the EU come from China -they are designed and built in Europe by Europeans.


 Ownership talks. For instance, some Mercedes Benz models are built in Finland. Despite of that, MB is considered a German car, not a Finnish one. Again, Toyota is a Japanese cup of rice, even if most of the models sold in Europe are built in Europe. Volvo has been a Chinese make for a few years.

Regardless of its origin, Volvo is heavily overrated and overpriced. There is no such logic in place that Scandinavian people should buy Scandinavian cars.


----------



## MattiG

ChrisZwolle said:


> Hmm, cars with automatic transmission tend to be heavier, resulting in more CO2 emissions per kilometer compared to manual transmission. In the Netherlands that means higher car purchase tax and higher road tax.


 It depends. Modern DSGs are more effective in terms of emissions and gas consumption than a manual transmission. The traditional torque converter based box tends to be less effective, but the gap is being closed by the electronic control features.


----------



## Galro

The Ministry of Transport and Communications have sent out a letter saying that, as a rule, main roads should from now on be built without roundabouts and be guided outside of built up areas. 

http://www.bygg.no/article/1222813


----------



## ChrisZwolle

I was just reading that at NRK as well: http://www.nrk.no/trondelag/krever-nye-hovedveier-uten-rundkjoringer-1.12157636

I believe the E6 Lillehammer - Trondheim was planned to have quite a number of roundabouts.


----------



## devo

Oh my. I was just about to post that exact same story.

This is good news!


----------



## Bjørne

I've been waiting for this to happen for so long! The four worst examples I know of are:
Rv. 159 at Lillestrøm: You go straight into a roundabout from a tunnel with a speed limit of 90 km/h.
The intersection between E16 and rv. 7 just outside of Hønefoss: This is especially bad on sundays when cabin-owners are going home to Oslo and Bærum.
The new Føkserød interchange on E18 outside Sandefjord: Before the extension of E18, it was a nice trumpet interchange, and now there are two completely unnecessary roundabouts.
The exit on E18 to Akland, Aust-Agder: It's the only roundabout on E18 between Oslo and Kristiansand.


----------



## Agent 006

New standard for motorways outside built-up areas. It replaces standards H8 and H9. The new standard tightens up vertical and horizontal curves a bit. New motorways will be constructed for a speed-limit of 110 km/h + safety margin (may be ca. 15 km/h). Old standard was 100 km/h + ca. 15 km/h. This is minimum standards, so many streches could of course have higher design speed.

http://www.vegvesen.no/_attachment/766252/binary/1010085?fast_title=NA-rundskriv+2015%2F2+-+Fartsgrenser+og+motorveger+-+Ny+dimensjoneringsklasse+for+motorveg+med+fartsgrense+110+km%2Ft.pdf


----------



## Gsus

ChrisZwolle said:


> I was just reading that at NRK as well: http://www.nrk.no/trondelag/krever-nye-hovedveier-uten-rundkjoringer-1.12157636
> 
> I believe the E6 Lillehammer - Trondheim was planned to have quite a number of roundabouts.


Only new roundabout planned on that section I know, is where Rv. 15 meets E6 at Otta. That is with the exception of the new E6 in Oppdal. Another was planned at Ringebu, but this has since been dropped, and a grade separated intersection is planned. At the western landing of the new bridge between Moelv and Biri, south of Lillehammer, todays roundabout is planned to be replaced by a grade separated intersection too.




Agent 006 said:


> New standard for motorways outside built-up areas. It replaces standards H8 and H9. The new standard tightens up vertical and horizontal curves a bit. New motorways will be constructed for a speed-limit of 110 km/h + safety margin (may be ca. 15 km/h). Old standard was 100 km/h + ca. 15 km/h. This is minimum standards, so many streches could of course have higher design speed.
> 
> http://www.vegvesen.no/_attachment/766252/binary/1010085?fast_title=NA-rundskriv+2015%2F2+-+Fartsgrenser+og+motorveger+-+Ny+dimensjoneringsklasse+for+motorveg+med+fartsgrense+110+km%2Ft.pdf


They´ve only removed the first line of N100 for now, until it´s revised. Dozing is still at 7,5% at 800 meters, and the vertical alignment is still the same for an 800+ curve. 

The minimum horizontal curve is starting to become very high in my opinion. But I´m not gonna challenge the people making N100. They know what they´re doing, and gives the road the feeling of good dynamic. May come at a high cost some places tho.


----------



## Rob73

MattiG said:


> Ownership talks. For instance, some Mercedes Benz models are built in Finland. Despite of that, MB is considered a German car, not a Finnish one. Again, Toyota is a Japanese cup of rice, even if most of the models sold in Europe are built in Europe. Volvo has been a Chinese make for a few years.
> 
> Regardless of its origin, Volvo is heavily overrated and overpriced. There is no such logic in place that Scandinavian people should buy Scandinavian cars.


Nooo it doesn't work like that either.

Jaguar Land Rover owners Indian still considered British
Rolls Royce owners German still considered British
Bentley owners German still considered British
MINI owners German still considered British
Fiat Chrysler Auto what are they, the headquarters are now in London, with major shareholders in Italy and the USA.
Daimler Benz only 33% of shareholders are German, the rest are not, the largest investor is in Kuwait.

Volvo is Swedish, the owners aren't but the brand is.


----------



## Agent 006

MESSAGE DELETED


----------



## Agent 006

Gsus said:


> They´ve only removed the first line of N100 for now, until it´s revised. Dozing is still at 7,5% at 800 meters, and the vertical alignment is still the same for an 800+ curve.
> 
> The minimum horizontal curve is starting to become very high in my opinion. But I´m not gonna challenge the people making N100. They know what they´re doing, and gives the road the feeling of good dynamic. May come at a high cost some places tho.


Well, it's actually a new dimention class replacing H8 and H9. And they do increase the values for "lavbrekk", "klotoider" etc. a bit, also for a 800 m curve. But not as much as they should have done, if they want to keep the same safety margin, I guess.


----------



## Nikolaj

Blackraven said:


> Interesting data
> 
> Although I kinda assumed that Volvo would've taken the #1 spot (especially since it is the only local/regional automaker in the Scandinavian/Nordic region)


In Denmark - another Scandinavian country - Volvo is not very popular at all. It is not at the top 20 neither as a brand nor as single models

*2014 numbers - 2013 numbers in parenthesis*

1. Volkswagen: 23.030 (24.372)
2. Peugeot: 18.237 (14.137)
3. Ford: 14.959 (15.254)
4. Skoda: 13.322 (13.704)
5. Toyota: 13.181 (14.476)
6. Citroën: 12.800 (12.467)
7. Renault: 11.333 (11.759)
8. Kia: 9.764 (10.954)
9. Hyundai: 9.220 (8.077)
10. Nissan: 7.754 (6.098)
11. Opel: 7.470 (6.474)
12. Audi: 6.761 (6.045)
13. Suzuki: 5.958 (5.486)
14. Mercedes: 5.030 (4.280)
15. Seat: 4.526 (4.938)
16. BMW: 4.131 (3.959)
17. Mazda: 3.978 (3.205)
18. Fiat: 3.931 (5.901)
19. Dacia: 2.822 (684)
20. Chevrolet: 2.462 (4.953)

Models:
1. VW Up: 10.106 (12.909)
2. Peugeot 108/107: 6.270 (4.961)
3. Peugeot 208: 5.702 (5.697 *)
4. Skoda Octavia: 5.406 (3.537)
5. Toyota Aygo: 5.336 (6.272)
6. VW Golf: 5.185 (4.190)
7. Ford Fiesta: 5.082 (5.451)
8. Citroën C1: 4.584 (4.521)
9. Renault Clio: 4.570 (5.550)
10. Ford Ka: 4.209 (3.874)
11. Skoda Citigo: 4.127 (6.015)
12. Kia Picanto: 4.018 (4.681)
13. VW Polo: 3.904 (3.206)
14. Toyota Yaris: 3.701 (3.229)
15. Nissan Qashqai: 3.480 (2.026)
16. Kia Rio: 3.470 (3.544)
17. Hyundai i20: 3.323 (3.544)
18. Peugeot 308: 2.932 (1.134)
19. Renault Captur: 2.859 (1.025)
20. Hyundai i10: 2.809 (1.888)

* Inkl. Peugeot 207


----------



## Shifty2k5

Denmark is definitely the (culturally) least Scandinavian of the Scandinavian countries. Denmark has a lot more in common with the Netherlands and Germany than it does with Sweden, so it makes sense that volvos aren't more common in DK.


----------



## SeanT

Plus, Volvo is not a lawbudget car in DK.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

I drove my Hyundai i10 through Norway last summer. Outside Bergen and Oslo I clearly had the smallest car on the road. Electric cars also disappear once you get farther from the big cities. Most i10s are powered by a 65 HP 1.1L petrol engine, but I have the rarer 85 HP 1.2L engine, which is clearly a plus in the mountains (I drove across the highest pass in France without problems). The one thing I was less comfortable with, was driving across rough gravel roads at road construction zones. They are not common in the Netherlands. The tires are pretty small and the car doesn't come with a spare tire (I do have one now).


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Apparently they have fairly deep foundations.


----------



## Þróndeimr

^^ yes, they were mounted on the mountain below the clay. Sadly, they weren't built to withstand movements from the sides, only horizontally.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Statens Vegvesen and NRK report the plans to widen E16 to four lanes from Vågsbotn (E16/E39 roundabout) and Arna have been cancelled due to lower traffic volumes than anticipated. They estimated the AADT at 17,000 and forecasted a growth to 20,000 vehicles per day, overwhelming the two-lane stretch of highway. However, traffic volumes were found to be at 13,500 vehicles per day, postponing the need to twin this stretch of E16.

http://www.nrk.no/hordaland/dropper-ny-e16-i-bergen-1.12188477

http://www.vegvesen.no/Europaveg/e1.../avsluttar-planegging-av-ny-e16-arna-vågsbotn

Does this impact the planned 'Arna Tunnel' as well? This is an 8 km planned tunnel to reduce the driving distance to Bergen from the east.


----------



## Agent 006

ChrisZwolle said:


> Statens Vegvesen and NRK report the plans to widen E16 to four lanes from Vågsbotn (E16/E39 roundabout) and Arna have been cancelled due to lower traffic volumes than anticipated. They estimated the AADT at 17,000 and forecasted a growth to 20,000 vehicles per day, overwhelming the two-lane stretch of highway. However, traffic volumes were found to be at 13,500 vehicles per day, postponing the need to twin this stretch of E16.
> 
> http://www.nrk.no/hordaland/dropper-ny-e16-i-bergen-1.12188477
> 
> http://www.vegvesen.no/Europaveg/e1.../avsluttar-planegging-av-ny-e16-arna-vågsbotn
> 
> Does this impact the planned 'Arna Tunnel' as well? This is an 8 km planned tunnel to reduce the driving distance to Bergen from the east.


Eventually this stretch will probably become a 4-lane motorway, but not as soon as orginally planned (construction should have started already in 2017). Now the stretch will be considered a possible part of "Ringveg øst", which starts planning now (prestudy). "Ringveg øst" also includes the new "Arna Tunnel", so the planning of this tunnel will continue.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

A 13 kilometer long and 300 meter deep undersea tunnel has been recommended to construct under the Alstenfjord near Sandnessjøen in Nordland. It would connect the islands of Herøy and Alstenøya with the Norwegian road network. The projected cost is 4 billion kroner / € 470 million.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

*E39 Romsdalsfjord*

A very large and expensive project is the Romsdalsfjord Crossing near Molde.

The plan is to build a 15.5 kilometer long undersea tunnel, and a 1,950 m long suspension bridge (main span: 1,600 m - the longest in Norway). The whole project will feature 2x2 lanes and a 100 km/h design speed. The tunnel will be 361 meters below sea level. It will basically be a 22 kilometer new motorway.

The projected cost is 12.5 billion kroner / € 1.5 billion. It will be tolled for 15 years.

Construction is planned between 2018 and 2023.

project site: http://www.vegvesen.no/Europaveg/e39romsdalsfjorden
also: http://www.moreaksen.no/


----------



## suburbicide

Some pictures from the construction of the new E6 Frya-Sjoa in Gudbrandsdalen:



























































































Source:http://www.gd.no/Se_bilder__Slik_er_status_langs_E6_utbyggingen_n_-5-18-15687.html?start=0&serie=0


----------



## Rob73

ChrisZwolle said:


> A very large and expensive project is the Romsdalsfjord Crossing near Molde.
> 
> The plan is to build a 15.5 kilometer long undersea tunnel, and a 1,950 m long suspension bridge (main span: 1,600 m - the longest in Norway). The whole project will feature 2x2 lanes and a 100 km/h design speed. The tunnel will be 361 meters below sea level. It will basically be a 22 kilometer new motorway.
> 
> The projected cost is 12.5 billion kroner / € 1.5 billion. It will be tolled for 15 years.
> 
> Construction is planned between 2018 and 2023.
> 
> project site: http://www.vegvesen.no/Europaveg/e39romsdalsfjorden
> also: http://www.moreaksen.no/


Already posted back in November. http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=119195738&postcount=3062

There's a good video as well.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7V1g0QN2qKk

More here http://www.rbnett.no/nyheter/article10348475.ece


I'm looking forward to this, I live in Aukra and will be able to see the construction of the bridges to Midsund and Gossa.


----------



## cinxxx




----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

*I like people with ambitions....*










http://www.bedrevei.no/abv-veikart/


----------



## Kjello0

See that they have changed the map slightly since their first one. Looks more like my map now. Most notably having a motorway up Østerdalen instead of across Dovre. However still some small differences.

I would have liked a more direct route between Oslo and Stavanger. And I would highlight Hallingdal - Hemsedal - Rv 5 as the main road between Oslo and Sogn og Fjordane by upgrading it to expressway all the way to Florø.


----------



## Ingenioren

It feels strange to build the E16 to Fagernes a 2+1, but not the "Ring 5" around Oslo.

Meanwhile in the real world, a nice (altough tiny) photo of the new Fv48 in Tysse:


----------



## Suburbanist

Isn't there some demand to build 2+2 on E6 up to Mo'I Rana?


----------



## italystf

54°26′S 3°24′E;121683734 said:


> http://www.bedrevei.no/abv-veikart/


Very impressive, a rich country like Norway needs a network like this. Currently there's no even a continuous 1+1 road along the coast between Stavanger-Bergen-Alesund-Trondheim.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Suburbanist said:


> Isn't there some demand to build 2+2 on E6 up to Mo'I Rana?


The traffic volume is mostly in the 1,000 - 2,000 vehicles per day range north of Steinkjer. I think traffic will benefit more from frequent safe passing options than a full-standard motorway that will drain the funds from other projects.


----------



## MattiG

italystf said:


> Very impressive, a rich country like Norway needs a network like this. Currently there's no even a continuous 1+1 road along the coast between Stavanger-Bergen-Alesund-Trondheim.


Drawing maps is easier than about anything, especially when the others are expected to pay the cost.

Here is my contribution to the Norwegian road network planning. The red lines are 3+3 motorways. The blue line is the direct tunnel road from Oslo to Kirkenes. No reason to not extend it to London.


----------



## Shifty2k5

italystf said:


> Very impressive, a rich country like Norway needs a network like this. Currently there's no even a continuous 1+1 road along the coast between Stavanger-Bergen-Alesund-Trondheim.


That's not how rich countries work I'm afraid. Try north Korea for that.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

Kjello0 said:


> See that they have changed the map slightly since their first one. Looks more like my map now. Most notably having a motorway up Østerdalen instead of across Dovre. However still some small differences.
> 
> I would have liked a more direct route between Oslo and Stavanger. And I would highlight Hallingdal - Hemsedal - Rv 5 as the main road between Oslo and Sogn og Fjordane by upgrading it to expressway all the way to Florø.


I forgot that the a previous map from this organization was posted some years ago by Muster, but I agree that the new one is more in line with what we have discussed before here, with both the coastal road (E39) and Østerdalen alignment being good improvements.


Ingenioren said:


> It feels strange to build the E16 to Fagernes a 2+1, but not the "Ring 5" around Oslo.


If ring 4 is built I do not see much need for the ring 5, it will be a detour for everybody except relatively small towns along that road.



MattiG said:


> Drawing maps is easier than about anything, especially when the others are expected to pay the cost.
> 
> Here is my contribution to the Norwegian road network planning. The red lines are 3+3 motorways. The blue line is the direct tunnel road from Oslo to Kirkenes. No reason to not extend it to London.


Having a lot of spare time, do we :lol: Seriously, the proposal from ABV is very much closer to what is currently in the public plans than your sketch. What is lacking, is a long term strategy for the whole national road network that is actually capable of addressing the transportation need between the regions of a country with strongly increasing population. In some places, like along E39, local politics triumphs national needs. Many of the other roads on the map are planned to be rebuilt anyway, but not with a standard built for the future in terms of safety and traveling speed. The Norwegian government however has said they will deliver a national motorway plan. Most likely it will not look like ABV's network, but it will nevertheless be interesting to see what comes out of it.

For me this is also an environmental issue. 7 hours drive or more between Oslo and the other major Norwegian cities means that airplanes almost always is the preferred choice for passenger traffic.

And .... "others" will not pay the costs. Norway is not Greece. There is also a difference between investments and consumption.


Shifty2k5 said:


> That's not how rich countries work I'm afraid. Try north Korea for that.


I do not really understand the reference to North Korea. Norway is rich today due to industries like oil that is not very dependent on road quality, but that will not last forever. Having said that, 1+1 along the whole E39 is (hopefully) not what will be built first. However, bits and pieces, like Møreaksen and Boknafjorden, are already today in quite advanced planning stages.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

Kjello0 said:


> See that they have changed the map slightly since their first one. Looks more like my map now. Most notably having a motorway up Østerdalen instead of across Dovre. However still some small differences.
> 
> I would have liked a more direct route between Oslo and Stavanger. And I would highlight Hallingdal - Hemsedal - Rv 5 as the main road between Oslo and Sogn og Fjordane by upgrading it to expressway all the way to Florø.


And where is your map these days, BTW? (Mine seems to have gone down the loo with changes of the imageshack site, and I don't find anty time to redraw it...)


----------



## pedrofil

I think some people are way too ambitious. Don't forget Norway only has a little over 5 million inhabitants, has very long distances between its bigger cities, and a very challenging topography. Traffic levels are very low on most of these national roads. 

I agree better road networks around and close to the bigger cities, should be a minimum demand though. And then straighter regional/national roads, 1+1 (With "midtrabatt" and plenty of good passing opportunities, ala Frya-Sjoa) should be well sufficent.


----------



## OulaL

54°26′S 3°24′E;121849028 said:


> Just to be clear on this, what I interpret as a decent 1+1 is a 12.5 m wide road with barriers separating the lanes following standards of curvature etc. which is often far from what current Norwegian highways have. Hence, bringing the entire E-network (6000 km) up to this standard would be very expensive.


Ok, so there was a misunderstanding. I just mean roads that have one lane in each direction, allowing two trucks going to different directions pass each other anywhere they happen to meet, without slowing down to walking speed. Not much to ask, I'd say.

Here's 4/E75 in Finland, approaching Tana valley https://maps.google.fi/maps?ll=69.6...ktKG3DHKMRCEp4gepEYYKw&cbp=12,357.05,,0,13.69

Here's E6 in Tana valley https://maps.google.fi/maps?ll=69.8...oid=QJOhIke_YHLwUNKUIoM0KQ&cbp=12,8.3,,0,7.37


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

I completely agree. Two lanes should be a minimum for the ~10 000 km of national roads in Norway (which includes the E-roads), although the road you pointed to only has an AADT of around 300. However, even this job is not a small undertaking. In 2011, a total of 6 900 km was narrower than 8.5 m. 1 666 km was "single lane", which means that the road is less than 6 m wide and lacking the center line (as as shown on OulaL's picture).

The same report of Vegvesenet also provided a traffic map overview of the national roads back in 2010:









More detailed traffic info can btw be found here, but it helps to be fluent in Norwegian and have a few hacker genes.... It shows for instance that there is great variation also in the type of traffic between the routes. The record with regards to truck traffic is perhaps Rv 3 which has a truck fraction up to about 30 % on sections dominated by transit traffic, which is about three times what is found in urban areas and also much higher than similar sections on other important transit roads such as E-16, E-134, and E-6.


----------



## metasmurf

*Riksvei 77 Tjernfjellet*









Image from Statens Vegvesen

A 3,4km long tunnel on Riksvei 77 in Nordland will be built starting this autumn, and it will be completed earliest autumn 2018. The tunnel including a new intersection with E6 will replace a steep, dangerous and narrow 4km section with a 10% grade. The road connects to Swedish Riksväg 95 and has a 26% truck share.

Here's a video of the current stretch. Surely would be a scary winter drive with a truck.





Road 77 to E6 near Junkerdal with Scania R480 by Giel


----------



## ChrisZwolle

metasmurf said:


> The road has a 26% truck share.


It sounds high, but should be seen in perspective, the AADT is only 370 vehicles per day. But yes, a definite improvement. I know they're getting sick in Norway by all the (foreign) truck accidents in the winter with prolonged road closures.


----------



## metasmurf

ChrisZwolle said:


> It sounds high, but should be seen in perspective, the AADT is only 370 vehicles per day. But yes, a definite improvement. I know they're getting sick in Norway by all the (foreign) truck accidents in the winter with prolonged road closures.


A tunnel with similar length, Umskartunnelen was completed 2006 on E12 with only around 600 AADT, so I guess the Norwegians regard the connections with Sweden as important as alternative routes are fare between, at least in the north.


----------



## MattiG

metasmurf said:


> Here's a video of the current stretch. Surely would be a scary winter drive with a truck.


It is a scary stretch even in a good summer conditions driving a passenger car. I know, by experience.


----------



## MattiG

metasmurf said:


> A tunnel with similar length, Umskartunnelen was completed 2006 on E12 with only around 600 AADT, so I guess the Norwegians regard the connections with Sweden as important as alternative routes are fare between, at least in the north.


The AADT is not a very clever basis for decision making in very sparsely populated areas. The basic road network is kept in a decent state despite of low average figures. In addition, in the touristic areas, the AADT may be a meaningless figure because the summer traffic per day may be 20 times the winter traffic.

For example, the AADT figures on the roads heading to Norway from Finland, are very low on the Finnish side. From west to east 21/E8: *400*, 93: *400*, 92: *250*, 4/E75: *200*, 970 Nuorgam: no data, 971: *220*. Still, the roads are kept in a rather good condition, and open all year long. I think the same logic applies at the Swedish-Norwegian border.


----------



## Gsus

How the road-administration thinks the norwegian highway-network should look like in 2050. Black is motorways/four lane roads, purple highways with a central divider and occational passing lanes, while green is standard two-lane roads, 7,5 - 10 meters wide.

Source: http://www.tu.no/samferdsel/2015/03/17/vil-ha-nesten-dobbelt-sa-mye-firefeltsvei-som-for-fire-ar-siden


----------



## OulaL

2050 and still no Tysfjord fixed link.


----------



## Gsus

OulaL said:


> 2050 and still no Tysfjord fixed link.


Tysfjord, as all other National highway-routes is planned to be ferry-free, by the road-administrations ambitions. Guess the map has a couple of holes on that part, as also the Sognefjord has a gap in the E39-line.

How far we`ll get to this, further or shorter remains to see. I`m starting to become quite old in 2050 (if I`m still alive), so the joy will be mostly for future generations. A lot can, and will probably happen to the ambitions, for better or worse, and Norways economy will probably not be as good as it has the last decades with ageing population, and a social budget, and public sector thats expanding uncontrolled. Not good to tell what will be prioritised in the future, but a good transport-network is gonna crusial in a future with low oil-prices, or no oil-incomes at all.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Another segment of the Skjeggestad Bridge was blown to smithereens today.


----------



## italystf

Is the parallel viaduct currently open with an 1+1 configuration?


----------



## ChrisZwolle

*E39, Rogfast*

The cost for the Rogfast megaproject (Boknafjord Tunnel) is estimated at 14.2 billion crowns, or around € 1.65 billion. The toll component can be repaid in 20 years, assuming a 5.5% interest rate. The tunnel is circa 26.7 kilometers long and has two tubes with two lanes each way (basically a motorway). 

The projected toll is 300 crowns for cars (circa € 35) and 900 crowns for trucks (circa € 105).

Construction could begin in late 2016, with an opening in 2024. It will be the longest road tunnel in the world, a title already held by Norway.


----------



## Suburbanist

ChrisZwolle said:


> The cost for the Rogfast megaproject (Boknafjord Tunnel) is estimated at 14.2 billion crowns, or around € 1.65 billion. The toll component can be repaid in 20 years, assuming a 5.5% interest rate. The tunnel is circa 26.7 kilometers long and has two tubes with two lanes each way (basically a motorway).
> 
> The projected toll is 300 crowns for cars (circa € 35) and 900 crowns for trucks (circa € 105).
> 
> Construction could begin in late 2016, with an opening in 2024.* It will be the longest road tunnel in the world*, a title already held by Norway.


More than the Femer international tunnel ?


----------



## Stafangr

Suburbanist said:


> More than the Femer international tunnel ?


According to Wikipedia, the Fehmarn Belt Fixed Link will be 17.6 km long. The Rogfast tunnel will be 26.7 km long. The Ryfast tunnel, which is under construction, will be 14.3 km long


----------



## devo

italystf said:


> Is the parallel viaduct currently open with an 1+1 configuration?


No, it has been closed since the collapse, but it will be opened after they secure the foundations of the bridge. This wil also be done on the old foundations of the now demolished bridge, which will be rebuilt by the same company and in almost exactly the same design.

The remaining bridge will open before the summer holiday, according to the latest reports, indeed as an 1+1 configuration. 

http://www.nrk.no/vestfold/apner-trolig-om-noen-maneder-1.12224480


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Stafangr said:


> According to Wikipedia, the Fehmarn Belt Fixed Link will be 17.6 km long.


The immersed section of the Femern Tunnel is 17.6 kilometers long. However, there are also conventional tunnel approaches, so the total tunnel length is closer to 18.2 km. Still considerably shorter than either the Lærdal Tunnel or The Boknafjord Tunnel, but tied with the recently opened Yamate Tunnel in Tokyo.


----------



## italystf

ChrisZwolle said:


> The immersed section of the Femern Tunnel is 17.6 kilometers long. However, there are also conventional tunnel approaches, so the total tunnel length is closer to 18.2 km. Still considerably shorter than either the Lærdal Tunnel or The Boknafjord Tunnel, but tied with the recently opened Yamate Tunnel in Tokyo.


And Frejus will cease to be the longest international road tunnel in the world.


----------



## MichiH

Gsus said:


> Opening of E6 Korslund – Langset (3,8km) in Norway has been concretized from spring 2015 to june 2015.


*E6:* Korslund – Langset 3.8km (2012 to June 2015) – project – map

I've checked the project page info. It's just reported to be opened in 2015, for instance: > click <.



> De siste kilometrene av E6 og dobbeltsporet jernbane åpner i 2015, mens lokalveg og gang-og sykkelveg åpner i 2016.
> 
> Google translated:
> The last kilometers of E6 and double track opens in 2015, while lokalveg and pedestrian and cycle opens in 2016.


Is the estimated opening in June 2015 still up-to-date? Is the opening already agreed on a day?


----------



## IceCheese

June 2015 still on this summary page: http://www.vegvesen.no/Europaveg/e6minnesundlabbdalen/Fakta/Fremdrift

If they're delayed, they haven't announced that.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

*E6 speed limit*

The speed limit will go up to 110 km/h on a 70 kilometer stretch of E6 north of Oslo. :cheers:

_Natt til 22. april vil nye E6 mellom Tangenkrysset i Stange og Grankrysset i Sørum skiltes om, og en strekning på rundt 70 kilometer vil få en økning fra 100 kilometer i timen til 110._

http://www.nrk.no/ho/her-blir-det-snart-mulig-a-kjore-i-110-km_t-1.12306948


----------



## Agent 006

ChrisZwolle said:


> The speed limit will go up to 110 km/h on a 70 kilometer stretch of E6 north of Oslo. :cheers:
> 
> _Natt til 22. april vil nye E6 mellom Tangenkrysset i Stange og Grankrysset i Sørum skiltes om, og en strekning på rundt 70 kilometer vil få en økning fra 100 kilometer i timen til 110._
> 
> http://www.nrk.no/ho/her-blir-det-snart-mulig-a-kjore-i-110-km_t-1.12306948


E6 Ås - Mosseporten (Patterød) will also get a 110 km/h summer speed limit this month. Now 10 stretches with a total length of 218 km have a 110 km/h limit (in winters 140 km):

E18 Eik – Hanekleiva (ca. 14 km)
E18 Helland bru – Kopstad (ca 5 km)
E18 Kopstad – Gulli (ca.14 km)
E18 Gulli – Langåker (ca. 25 km)
E18 Langåker – Bommestad (ca. 6,5 km)
E18 Sky – Langgangen (ca. 11 km)
E6 Solli – Årvoll (ca 16,5 km)
E6 Årum v/Sarpsborg – tollstasjonen v/Svinesund (22 km)
E6 Ås – Mosseporten (27 km) (1. april to 1. november)
E6 Gran – Kolomoen (77 km) (Dal - Kolomoen (51 km) 1. april to 1. november)

Source: http://www.vegvesen.no/Om+Statens+vegvesen/Media/Siste+nyheter/Vis?key=851580


----------



## Agent 006

The new junction between E6 and highway 25 at Hamar (Åkersvika). The junction will be part of the E6 motorway Kolomoen - Moelv construction (ca. 42 km), which may start in 2017 and be finished in 2019. Last regulation plan, E6 Kåterud - Arnkvern (the Hamar part), on hearing now:










Video of proposed regulation plan (E6 Kåterud - Arnkvern): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UzlYmSCIbzk&feature=player_embedded

SVVs site with proposed regulation plan: http://www.vegvesen.no/Europaveg/e6kolomoenmoelv/Nyhetsarkiv/forslag-til-reguleringsplan-p%C3%A5-h%C3%B8ring


----------



## metasmurf

*Helgelandsbrua, Fylkesvei 17 Nordland*





Helgelandsbrua by Briax Breimo


----------



## suburbicide

^^
The Helgeland bridge was voted the most beautiful bridge in Norway by the leading Norwegian engineering magazine some years ago. I have a feeling the Hardanger bridge might take the award today though.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

The Norwegian government is finally beginning to plan long term, but unfortunately only on a few selected road sections far. The construction of the following roads are assured long-term 130 BNOK financing during the next 20 years by the establishment of a new government-owned road construction company:

E39 Lyngdal – Ålgård
E18/E39 Kristiansand – Lyngdal
E18 Langangen – Grimstad
E6 Kolomoen – Moelv
E6 Moelv – Ensby
E6 Ulsberg – Melhus
E6 Ranheim – Åsen

(Map here: https://www.hoyre.no/admin/filestor...tert/2015.04.10SamletframstillingS-Norge..pdf)

This is something new in Norway as most projects so far have depended on year-to-year priorities in the national budget, and the new way of organizing road construction will enable more long-term planning over larger distances. 


More for the English speaking audience here.
http://dlapiper.no/2015/04/breaking-news-ppps-in-norway-government-announcement/


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Ryfylke Tunnel progress (near Stavanger).


----------



## ChrisZwolle

*E16*

I found some more footage of E16 which I filmed last year. This is E16 from Voss to the Gudvanga Tunnel. It traverses through varied landscapes on this 35 km stretch, with pastures, lakes, rivers, steep rockwalls and high waterfalls.


----------



## pedrofil

Nice video. Driving through the Nerøy Valley is indeed something else, even for a Norwegian! Me and a few friends got stuck there due to a minor accident in the Gudvangentunnel around a kilometer in front of us, for around an hour last summer. 30 degrees and sun. Wasn't exactly the worst hour of my life


----------



## OulaL

Some help would be appreciated.

Are studded tyres allowed now 1) on mountains, or Filefjell or Hardangervidda in particular; or 2) in Norway in general, if going to cross (or having crossed) Filefjell or Hardangervidda?

I don't ask about the law, I ask about common sense. I have visited Norway quite a few times in winter (with studded tyres) as well as summer (with summer tyres) but never before in early May.


----------



## IceCheese

It's allowed, and you're expected to drive according to road conditions, IE it may be necessary to use studded tyres if weather requires it.

For road conditions in mountain crosses, check this link: http://www.vegvesen.no/trafikk/mobil/?report=604


----------



## Stafangr

Xpost from the Ryfast-thread.



Stafangr said:


> *Aerial of the contruction site where both Hundvåg-tunnelen and Eiganes-tunnelen will resurface.*
> Note that this photo only covers about one third of the construction site in this area.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Nice photo. How many people live in such a typical house? They seem quite big.


----------



## Stafangr

Some of the houses in this picture are single family houses/villas/mansions, while some are divided into apartments. These neighbourhoods (Våland at the bottom, and Eiganes at the top) are two of the traditional, wooden neighbourhoods, and enjoy some regulatory protection. They are also among the most expensive parts of Stavanger. You can actually spot the most expensive house sold in Stavanger.

IIRC, Orknøygata 18 was sold for about 30M NOK.


----------



## OulaL

IceCheese said:


> It's allowed, and you're expected to drive according to road conditions, IE it may be necessary to use studded tyres if weather requires it.
> 
> For road conditions in mountain crosses, check this link: http://www.vegvesen.no/trafikk/mobil/?report=604


Thanks. But your link says that Filefjell is closed...? I knew there were some works but didn't expect them to close it entirely.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Filefjell is closed from 1 June to 19 June.

http://www.vegvesen.no/Europaveg/e16varpesmedalsosen/Nyhetsarkiv/e16-filefjell-stengt-1.til-19.juni


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Bus lanes are not automatically availble for electric cars anymore. The government decided that it will be up to the local authorities to ban or allow electric cars from bus lanes.

I suppose this could mean a major increase in traffic congestion, as some bus lanes were quite full of electric cars which may now have to move into the regular lanes. 

http://www.nrk.no/norge/kutter-elbilenes-rett-til-kollektivfeltkjoring-1.12347852


----------



## Stafangr

ChrisZwolle said:


> Bus lanes are not automatically availble for electric cars anymore. The government decided that it will be up to the local authorities to ban or allow electric cars from bus lanes.
> 
> I suppose this could mean a major increase in traffic congestion, as some bus lanes were quite full of electric cars which may now have to move into the regular lanes.
> 
> http://www.nrk.no/norge/kutter-elbilenes-rett-til-kollektivfeltkjoring-1.12347852


Congested bus lanes is mostly a problem in the Oslo-region. It's perhaps more important that the counties will get the power to decide whether or not electric cars will pay on toll roads. Ferries will continue to be free, and there won't be any taxes and fees when buying an electric car.


----------



## MattiG

ChrisZwolle said:


> Filefjell is closed from 1 June to 19 June.
> 
> http://www.vegvesen.no/Europaveg/e16varpesmedalsosen/Nyhetsarkiv/e16-filefjell-stengt-1.til-19.juni


 I recommend taking the detour over 53 via Øvre Årdal. A nice and frightening descent.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

I drove some of Fv. 53 last year. Very scenic indeed. This is also the recommended detour for local traffic. Long-distance traffic could drive via Hemsedal.


----------



## Rob73

Stafangr said:


> Congested bus lanes is mostly a problem in the Oslo-region. It's perhaps more important that the counties will get the power to decide whether or not electric cars will pay on toll roads. Ferries will continue to be free, and there won't be any taxes and fees when buying an electric car.


I say they should pay, electric cars cause just as much wear and tear as conventional vehicles. Didn't the govt say they would revisit taxing electric vehicles in 2 years time? I think they should start taxing them gradually, 20% each year until they end up paying the full rate.


----------



## devo

Update on Skjeggestad Bruer:

Work on making two-lane traffic possible over the remaining bridge will be done before this summer. This will last until next summer, when the new bridge, where works starts this September, will be done. The new bridge will be almost identical to the old one.

Source: http://www.nrk.no/vestfold/e18-kjorbar-for-fellesferien-1.12331884 (Norwegian)

OSM already reflects the situation as it will be when the road opens before this summer:
http://osm.org/go/0TpjGJ6Pk-


----------



## ChrisZwolle

The recommended alignment of E18/E39 around Kristiansand has been presented:


----------



## Þróndeimr

The road to Geiranger and Trollstigen opened today. Drone video of the snow clearing:


----------



## Osamede

Stafangr said:


> Congested bus lanes is mostly a problem in the Oslo-region. It's perhaps more important that the counties will get the power to decide whether or not electric cars will pay on toll roads. Ferries will continue to be free, and there won't be any taxes and fees when buying an electric car.


For the record congestion in bus lanes is not about electric cars. It is about poor road manners and poor road design. 

Said bus lanes are not interior express lanes, but rather are placed on the outsidemost lane where they overlap with the on- and off-ramps to the road, with rather predictable consequences.

On top of that - at least on E18 coming in from the western suburbs of Oslo into the city - you have rather egoistic drivers of non electric cars who as the enter the highway from those on-ramps described above, insist on "sneaking" about 50-100 meters further on the reserved bus lane than they are allowed to, then scared of getting a fine for being in the bus lane, they then stop and try to merge into the regular lanes, in the process blocking the bus lane.

That this has, in the local press, somehow been blamed on electric vehicles is one of the most embarrassing episodes for them IMO, in terms of exposing their lack of journalistic integrity.

But people pick up the newspapers, then read this completely wrong "news" about electric cars being at fault, swallow it and repeat it.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

*Norwegian detour*

There was a landslide across E6 in Northern Norway on Sunday, and Finnmark, the northernmost county, was cut off from the rest of the country. The detour was 6-700 km via Finland.... 








The road is now open with a single lane past the landslide location, with occasional closures.


----------



## MattiG

54°26′S 3°24′E;123979541 said:


> There was a landslide across E6 in Northern Norway on Sunday, and Finnmark, the northernmost county, was cut off from the rest of the country. The detour was 6-700 km via Finland....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The road is now open with a single lane past the landslide location, with occasional closures.


The E6 has been sometimes closed between Karasjok and Tana Bru while Fv98 has been closed for winter. That causes problems to the cargo traffic as the customs offices in Karigasniemi and Utsjoki are closed at nights. To keep the detour via Finland open, these offices at the Finnish/Norwegian border have been opened temporarily to operate 24 hours a day. This is amazing because the authorities typically are not that flexible.


----------



## metasmurf

*E16 Filefjell*

A video about the E16 Filefell project (in norwegian).





Statens vegvesen - Nye E16 Filefjell by Vegvesenet


----------



## OulaL

MattiG said:


> To keep the detour via Finland open, these offices at the Finnish/Norwegian border have been opened temporarily to operate 24 hours a day. This is amazing because the authorities typically are not that flexible.


In the north they are allowed to use common sense.

On the other hand, I see no reason to bother Finnish authorities anyway regarding Norwegian internal transports. Smuggling probably isn't an issue in this direction. So even if the customs were closed, Norwegian internal transports could be allowed, provided they don't unload while in the EU (and why would they...)

Of course Norwegians could still have some random checks, which they probably do anyway.


----------



## MattiG

OulaL said:


> In the north they are allowed to use common sense.
> 
> On the other hand, I see no reason to bother Finnish authorities anyway regarding Norwegian internal transports. Smuggling probably isn't an issue in this direction. So even if the customs were closed, Norwegian internal transports could be allowed, provided they don't unload while in the EU (and why would they...)
> 
> Of course Norwegians could still have some random checks, which they probably do anyway.


If the cargo crosses the border, it is not any more internal traffic to Norway but international cargo subject to zillions of regulations. The cargo may be originated in a third country, too, such as Russia. That is why it is easiest to go by the book.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

*E39 Hordfast*

The western and eastern alternatives for the Hordfast project have been scrapped. They are now gunning for a straight route north across Bjørnafjord, as a circa 51 - 55 kilometer long motorway from Stord to Os. 

Bjørnafjord is over 500 meters deep in this area. It is 5 - 6 kilometers wide. This rules out any conventional tunnel or bridge solution. They are exploring several options, including floating bridges and floating tunnels. 

Langenuen is a narrow strait between Stord and Tysnes. All alternatives call for a large suspension bridge, with a main span between 1200 and 1600 meters (i.e. as big as the Great Belt Bridge in Denmark). In addition, smaller bridges and/or tunnels are needed to cross side fjords on Tysnes.


----------



## Mirror's Edge

All these projects sounds cool and all but building is one thing, then you need to keep up maintenance also..and not have roads closed because of this or that reason 24/7.

Norway's main trunk roads are in terrible shape and then at a few spots they go nuts wasting money like crazy...just stop it.

Maybe it's time to forget the 50 ppl living in these remote fjords, they can use boats or move to town?


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Umm, E39 is a major route between two of the largest cities in Norway  It will cut travel time from 4.5 hours to 2 hours if all projects are completed.


----------



## MattiG

ChrisZwolle said:


> Bjørnafjord is over 500 meters deep in this area. It is 5 - 6 kilometers wide. This rules out any conventional tunnel or bridge solution. They are exploring several options, including floating bridges and floating tunnels.


They could build a massive pendulum. If the height were 3000 meters over the sea level, the amplitude would be about 57 degree, and altitude of the car terminal level would be 1300 meters over sea only.


----------



## OulaL

MattiG said:


> If the cargo crosses the border, it is not any more internal traffic to Norway but international cargo subject to zillions of regulations. The cargo may be originated in a third country, too, such as Russia. That is why it is easiest to go by the book.


I know the law, I was thinking about common sense. I know we shouldn't do so when dealing with authorities...


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

MattiG said:


> They could build a massive pendulum. If the height were 3000 meters over the sea level, the amplitude would be about 57 degree, and altitude of the car terminal level would be 1300 meters over sea only.


Hillarious. But it would have been an interesting ride. Ignoring any friction, the maximum speed would be more than 550 km/h right above the waves according to my rather rough estimate ....


----------



## Suburbanist

Why not a tunnel with spiral access on both sides?


----------



## MattiG

Suburbanist said:


> Why not a tunnel with spiral access on both sides?


I do not believe the tunnel construction, and the access roads are the key issues. Making the ventilation might be the challenge. If the ascent were 6 per cent, and the needed depth 700 meters, the length of the access roads would be almost 12 kilometers each. That would make the total length of the tunnel to be about 30 kilometers.

How about the groundbreaking concept of a moving floating bridge? Let us not to build a bridge of 5-6 kilometers, but a number of shorter ones, say 100 meters each. They could be equipped with engines and propellers to make them moving from one port to another.


----------



## sotonsi

I love the idea of a floating tunnel - are there any others?


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Suburbanist said:


> Why not a tunnel with spiral access on both sides?


They are planning a motorway standard tunnel. I don't think spiral tunnels work well with that. There are some spiral tunnels in Norway though. The coolest is in Drammen: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drammen_Spiral


----------



## ChrisZwolle

E16 near Bagn (south of Fagernes) will get a 4.3 kilometer long single tube tunnel. It will be tolled, with a toll rate of 52-57 kroner (around € 6). I find that relatively expensive for a short stretch of two-lane road. 

I drove this road last year, it was one of the lowest standard stretches of E16 (narrow and curvy). Though I wonder if it is worth € 6 for only 11 km of new road. Rv.7 charges 70 kroner for 20 km which cuts 20 minutes of travel time. That sounds like more value for money than this toll project.


----------



## MattiG

Suburbanist said:


> How are these toll schemes set up in Norway? Are they PPP contracts or SPE (special-purpose entities) with their own financing on a set deadline? Who bears the risk or the benefits of lower or higher than predicted traffic?
> 
> Does the government collect tolls for a fixed term and pay for construction instead?
> 
> Are tolls collected until all bonds or financial obligations of construction can be retired from the market?
> 
> Is there some government fund that tolls on new roads/bridges/tunnels must replenish before tolls are suspended?


Basically, the state pays the construction. For (almost) each new major road/tunnel/bridge, there is a political discussion on whether the construction will be toll-financed or not. The share of toll-financing is something between 0 and 100 percent of the investment. 

There is a mathematical model to make estimates of AADT as a function of the toll fee. Typically, the percentage and fee are calculated targeting a payment period of 15-20 years. When the collected amount of money minus interests minus collection costs equals to target amount of money, the toll booths are removed.

In several cases, the new toll road has been much more popular than anticipated, and the booths have been removed years before expected.

There are some factors making things more complex: The toll may be collected before the new road is opened. If a ferry is to be replaced by fixed link, there may be surcharge embedded in the ferry fee. Then in some places, the toll is collected on an old parallel road, too, to make in unattractive to leave to new road just to avoid tolls.


----------



## Rob73

^^

What annoys me is when the toll is retained long after the project has been completed to fund other projects. This is not fair, for a new project set up a new toll.


----------



## Uppsala

When are they going to reopen Skjeggestad bridge again. I mean the undamaged half. It is possible at open the undamaged half and have traffic in both directions on this temporarily until the second half is done.

But when are they going to open it?


----------



## IceCheese

Well, it's possible as you say, but they had to check the underground mases first to be sure there wouldn't be anymore slides. Now they've even refounded a couple of the pillars holding the bridge, and litteraly raised the bridge a bit. With a new alignment and new road markings, the bridge will open till this year's holiday season late June/early July.


----------



## Suburbanist

Rob73 said:


> ^^
> 
> What annoys me is when the toll is retained long after the project has been completed to fund other projects. This is not fair, for a new project set up a new toll.


What determines this?


----------



## Gsus

http://www.vegvesen.no/Europaveg/e6jaktoyentonstad/Nyhetsarkiv/storkontrakt-p%C3%A5-e6-i-trondheim-skal-lyses-ut

Main tender is out on E6 Melhus-Heimdal!

One of the very worst main roads in Norway (counting standard vs. traffic), and the main road into Trondheim from the south is finaly being expandet too four lanes. This E6-section was first planned as a four-lane motorway during the 1980´s, but nothing has happened since, except for a short four-lane stretch at the southern end of this section, openet during mid 2000´s.

The E6 is planned to have four lanes between Trondheim and Støren within 2023. I only belive that if theres work on all remaining parts within 2021


----------



## Rob73

Suburbanist said:


> What determines this?


I have no idea.


----------



## Registered_User

Looks like Grefsenveien, Oslos perhaps worst conditioned public road, finally get a long sought after upgrade. 
I found this announcement on a door in the neighborhood yesterday, announcing work begins tomorrow June 22nd. Sadly it does not seem to involve full rebuild of tram tracks and the stop itself.


----------



## Agent 006

*E6 Ulven - Klemetsrud*

The missing motorway link, E6 Ulven - Klemetsrud, will eventually become a motorway too (H7-standard, which means city motorway-standard). Klemetsrud - Abildsø will be widened to 7 or 8 lanes (including two bus/truck lanes) and shoulders of 3 m, and may start construction in 2019. Abildsø - Ulven will be replaced by new tunnels, which will go directly to E6 Ulven/Alnabru. This means you could pass Oslo at E6 without using Ring 3 somewhere in the future (probably before 2030).

Of course it would have been better having a new Ring 4 Ski - Lilestrøm. But this is better than nothing. Whether the entire new stretch would be signed motorway, I can't guarantee. But it would at least look like a motorway, in contrast with current situation.










Project page (in Norwegian): http://www.vegvesen.no/Europaveg/e6manglerud


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Nice! This is one of the most substandard stretches of the Oslo bypass. There is even a T-intersection and bus stops. It also has sidewalks and some very tight ramps.


----------



## Gsus

Agent 006 said:


> *E6 Ulven - Klemetsrud*
> 
> The missing motorway link, E6 Ulven - Klemetsrud, will eventually become a motorway too (H7-standard, which means city motorway-standard). Klemetsrud - Abildsø will be widened to 7 or 8 lanes (including two bus/truck lanes) and shoulders of 3 m, and may start construction in 2019. Abildsø - Ulven will be replaced by new tunnels, which will go directly to E6 Ulven/Alnabru. This means you could pass Oslo at E6 without using Ring 3 somewhere in the future (probably before 2030).
> 
> Of course it would have been better having a new Ring 4 Ski - Lilestrøm. But this is better than nothing. Whether the entire new stretch would be signed motorway, I can't guarantee. But it would at least look like a motorway, in contrast with current situation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Project page (in Norwegian): http://www.vegvesen.no/Europaveg/e6manglerud


Don´t think it will be signed as a motorway, if things are done by the book. Only one lane in each direction in the tunnel between Bryn and Ulven for all other traffic than heavy vehicles. Buses and trucks will have their own lane.

Remember, no more capacity for personal vehicles is to be planned in larger cities, so I´m guessing the ramps at Ulven will be dimesioning ;-)


----------



## IceCheese

Skjeggestad bridge (the northbound part) opens this Friday: http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/iriks/Skjeggestad-bru-apnes-allerede-fredag-8070973.html

Construction of a new southbound bridge will start shortly after, most likely ready next summer.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

*E6 Narvik*

Hålogaland Bridge. The pylon has reached 70 m. Another 100 m to go. :cheers:


----------



## suburbicide

The last section of E6 north of Minnesund opened to traffic today. Here's a video of a test drive shortly before opening:

http://www.rb.no/tv/vi-har-provekjort-nye-e6-bli-med-5-43-92841.html


----------



## kvasir77

Agent 006 said:


> *E6 Ulven - Klemetsrud*
> 
> The missing motorway link, E6 Ulven - Klemetsrud, will eventually become a motorway too (H7-standard, which means city motorway-standard). Klemetsrud - Abildsø will be widened to 7 or 8 lanes (including two bus/truck lanes) and shoulders of 3 m, and may start construction in 2019. Abildsø - Ulven will be replaced by new tunnels, which will go directly to E6 Ulven/Alnabru. This means you could pass Oslo at E6 without using Ring 3 somewhere in the future (probably before 2030).
> 
> Of course it would have been better having a new Ring 4 Ski - Lilestrøm. But this is better than nothing. Whether the entire new stretch would be signed motorway, I can't guarantee. But it would at least look like a motorway, in contrast with current situation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Project page (in Norwegian): http://www.vegvesen.no/Europaveg/e6manglerud


They should do something about the Ljarbru diagonal at the same time. From the intersection at Hauketo, there should be a tunnel straight throw the hillside towards Bjørndal.


----------



## Uppsala

How is it going on Skjeggestad bridge now? Is it open now?


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Yes, it opened last Friday with one lane in each direction.


----------



## Uppsala

ChrisZwolle said:


> Yes, it opened last Friday with one lane in each direction.


Good!


----------



## Uppsala

And now since the last part of E6 in Sweden is finished, motorways in Norway is a part of the Continental motorways :happy:


----------



## tomPunk

54°26′S 3°24′E;126863910 said:


> Most motorways in Norway is in southern part of southern Norway, not significantly further north than eg Stockholm when it comes to sunlight.


No, but I guess you missed the point. Stockholm is almost as far south as Fredrikstad, Göteborg is beside Skagen the tip of Denmark.
And besides the Stockholm metro, the (south)west coast and the south of Sweden are the biggest population centers. 
On the other side (to the north), Trondheim area is among the dense populated regions of Norway, and Trondheim is on the same degree N as Nordmaling a bit south of Umeå - the Trondheim area could also be said to stretch north of Umeå..

I must say I don't see how what I wrote, where I was talking about the population centers (or concentrations of population), is wrong. Actually Norway is a little more "northern" than Sweden, it's plainly visible on a map.


----------



## MattiG

54°26′S 3°24′E;126863910 said:


> Even in Norway the use of traditional street lights is quite costly ( I have heard up to 100 kNOK ~= 11 k€ per km per year), although the energy use is decreasing with the improved LED technology.


In Finland, the investments are about 85 per cent of the total life cycle cost, maintenance 10 per cent, and energy 5 per cent. I believe Norway is not significantly different. Thus, conversion from the traditional bulbs will have only a minor cost impact, while the energy saving might be 50 per cent or more.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

tomPunk said:


> No, but I guess you missed the point. Stockholm is almost as far south as Fredrikstad, Göteborg is beside Skagen the tip of Denmark.
> And besides the Stockholm metro, the (south)west coast and the south of Sweden are the biggest population centers.
> On the other side (to the north), Trondheim area is among the dense populated regions of Norway, and Trondheim is on the same degree N as Nordmaling a bit south of Umeå - the Trondheim area could also be said to stretch north of Umeå..
> 
> I must say I don't see how what I wrote, where I was talking about the population centers (or concentrations of population), is wrong. Actually Norway is a little more "northern" than Sweden, it's plainly visible on a map.


Calm down, I did not say that you were wrong, I was talking about where the motorways were located whereas you are discussing population centers. To this day the Trondheim area does not have any motorways, only expressways (mototrafikkveg), which does not have the same requirements in the regulations. The northernmost motorway of Norway ends at E6 Kolomoen (60.7° N). Compare this with Sweden, where the continous motorway network ends at E4 Gävle (also 60.7° N). but there are also sections of motorways further north: Around Sundsvall ending in Timrå(35 km, 62.5° N) and even Piteå–Bertnäs (6 km, 65.4 ° N). There are plans for relative short motorway sections also around Trondheim (63.4° N), but the main motorway network unfortunately will not strech significantly further north in Norway than Sweden in the foreseeable future, rather the opposite. Most likely there will be a Stockholm-Sundsvall motorway long before the main Norwegian network will reach a similar latitude.

In any case I do not agree that higher latitude is an argument for more street lights, as I argued in my previous post.



MattiG said:


> In Finland, the investments are about 85 per cent of the total life cycle cost, maintenance 10 per cent, and energy 5 per cent. I believe Norway is not significantly different. Thus, conversion from the traditional bulbs will have only a minor cost impact, while the energy saving might be 50 per cent or more.


Interesting, but conversion of existing street lights is a different discussion, where energy savings should be an objective in itself. I would imagine, however, that the solution on the E6 section I showed is significantly cheaper in investments than traditional street lights using poles, although I understand that in that particular case they have prepared the electric infrastructure for later conversion to full street lights since it was a trial.


----------



## Ingenioren

E6 from Oslo to Gardermoen used to be without streetlights, but they were added when the road got raised the speed limit from 90 to 100.

When we are on the subject of speed limits, it's a pleasant surprice(for me) to learn that a section of new E39 in Sør Trøndelag to get 90:


----------



## metasmurf

*Rv 555 Sotrasambandet*

Visualization of Sotrasambandet near Bergen (in Norwegian).





Statens vegvesen - Rv. 555 Sotrasambandet. Animasjon av framlegg til reguleringsplan.  by Vegvesenet


----------



## Agent 006

In the "konsekvensutredningsfase" it was supposed that Sotrasambandet got hard sholders of 3 meters, even though H7-standard, probably due to high traffic amount. Now they ended up with 1,5 m in the regulation plan. Typically hno:


----------



## Rob73

Bjørne said:


> Without knowing for certain, I'd say it's because of all the dense forests and risk of hitting wild animals. Well-lit highways may prevent serious injury as you see the hazard sooner.


Except some kommunes are cheap like Molde, they don't turn on all there street lights, on the road to Aukra they are hardly ever on, as soon as you get to Aukra kommune the street lights are always on. Go figure?????


----------



## Suburbanist

Dawn and dusk are the most tricky and challenging times for the human eye as it transitions while the ground is dark but the sky is clear. Thus, danger


----------



## Suburbanist

Long twilight periods are common in northern latitudes, winter or summer


----------



## Mirror's Edge

Most light on fast roads are really annoying with the constant expanding and contracting of the lens.
All the busy sections in Scania is dark and it works fine, but when you drive in metro 08 or GBG its much worse with the uneven light distribution.

CPH also have lights on some sections but it's in continuing rows hanging on cables, the light is even and weaker then in Sweden.
Keep it dark is best in the end.


----------



## MattiG

Suburbanist said:


> Long twilight periods are common in northern latitudes, winter or summer


The most problematic twilight period is about the time of Nautical Twilight, i.e. the period when the center of the Sun lies 6...12 degrees. The duration of this period can be approximated by the formula

t = 24 minutes/sqrt(1-(sin Lat/cos Dec)^2)

where Lat is the latitude of the observer and Dec is the declination of the sun. For example, the declination today evening was about +3 degrees 43 minutes. The duration of the twilight at the northern latitudes 70, 60, and 50 was 71, 48, and 37 minutes respectively.

The formula is not valid close to solstices, as the Sun's altitude to time curve is far from being linear across the twilight time.

For instance, at December 13th 2015, the duration of the twilight at the same latitudes will be 106, 56, and 42 minutes, respectively. (Sun declination -23 degrees 8 minutes).

However, the decisions on whether to illuminate is far more complex than the duration of darkness and twilight. The typical factors are traffic density, road geometry, accident history, availability of money, and cultural ones. In my opinion, those non-illuminated almost-urban roads around London are scary. In most cases, such roads would be illuminated in the Nordic countries.

I do not quite understand the reasoning to 'illuminate' the E6 north of Oslo by 1 watt led lamps at the median strip. Reflective poles would be almost equal, but much cheaper.


----------



## Ingenioren

Reflective poles are not equal in heavy snow/rain/fog situation.


----------



## MattiG

Ingenioren said:


> Reflective poles are not equal in heavy snow/rain/fog situation.


I would say they are, or they are even better. Their reflective area is vertical, and it does not get covered very easily. Good reflection material gives a reasonable response even in adverse conditions. A LED lamp does not create warm heat enough to melt the snow and ice around it. (This the reason why LED-equipped traffic lights in the arctic areas need a warming grid to keep them visible.)


----------



## IceCheese

Mirror's Edge said:


> Most light on fast roads are really annoying with the constant expanding and contracting of the lens.
> All the busy sections in Scania is dark and it works fine, but when you drive in metro 08 or GBG its much worse with the uneven light distribution.
> 
> CPH also have lights on some sections but it's in continuing rows hanging on cables, the light is even and weaker then in Sweden.
> Keep it dark is best in the end.


I guess that depends on what you're used to then. Driving highways in Sweden I always find it enoying that when you finally get som dark vision, a car with four full headlights com at you, and then you're blind again. Especially thinking of the moose hazard, no lights on roads with continous traffic is very unsafe.


----------



## Ale92Milano_SpA

Driving through Øksnes (Norway) from Myre to Høydal 5.09.2015 Timelapse x4


----------



## ChrisZwolle

*Rv. 509 Tananger / Stavanger*

The single carriageway segment of riksvei 509 west of Stavanger will be upgraded to a dual carriageway. It includes two interchanges and some roundabouts. The bridge across the Hafrsfjord will also be replaced.



















Tananger Ring (southern interchange)









Kontinentalsvegen interchange.


----------



## Gsus

ChrisZwolle said:


> The single carriageway segment of riksvei 509 west of Stavanger will be upgraded to a dual carriageway. It includes two interchanges and some roundabouts. The bridge across the Hafrsfjord will also be replaced.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tananger Ring (southern interchange)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kontinentalsvegen interchange.



But since two of four lanes is supposed to be bus-lanes, there will probably be ques in the left lanes from day 

If politicians really want to reduce the use of cars, they should really forbid it in some way instead of putting up tolls, where car-owners only pays for the constructon of mega-expensive bus-lanes. As if everyone is driving around just for fun. I understand the point inside city-centres, but on sections like this, far from downtown Stavanger, and like the new Sotrasambandet, 10 km from downtown Bergen it`s really redicolous. Especially when it`s on the national road-network! On this particular section you`re actually able to pass if someone is driving slow in front of you today, and traffic allows it. That won`t be possible with a median.


----------



## Ingenioren

You can always pass on the right unless you drive some sort of fossil-fuel vehicle.


----------



## Rob73

Ingenioren said:


> You can always pass on the right unless you drive some sort of fossil-fuel vehicle.


Damn city politicians tend to forget a lot of people don't live in cities with access to PT.


----------



## Stafangr

Gsus said:


> But since two of four lanes is supposed to be bus-lanes, there will probably be ques in the left lanes from day


I think those aren't just going to be bus lanes, but 'bus + truck' lanes. The 'Transportkorridor vest' is supposed to let trucks travel north-south without them entering downtown Stavanger. http://www.vegvesen.no/Vegprosjekter/transportkorridorvest


----------



## ChrisZwolle

See the Hålogaland Bridge rise:

142611608


----------



## Gsus

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dIWtdfv3zqk

Animation of the southern 10 kilometers of the new E18 between Arendal and Tvedestrand. Preparatory works as tree-felling, building of constrution-roads and a culvert has already began. Main tenders is scheduled to be out right after new year.

When this section, and Rugtvedt-Dørdal (also scheduled for construction-start next year) is finished, all the "slow" sections on E18 between Oslo and Kristiansand has been eliminated. Looking forward to it!


----------



## OAQP

Gsus said:


> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dIWtdfv3zqk
> 
> Animation of the southern 10 kilometers of the new E18 between Arendal and Tvedestrand. Preparatory works as tree-felling, building of constrution-roads and a culvert has already began. Main tenders is scheduled to be out right after new year.
> 
> When this section, and Rugtvedt-Dørdal (also scheduled for construction-start next year) is finished, all the "slow" sections on E18 between Oslo and Kristiansand has been eliminated. Looking forward to it!


Good point but the sections between Langangen - Rugtvedt and Dørdal - Tvedestrand are almost exclusively 1+1 and substandard in my opinion so there is still a long way to go!


----------



## Gsus

OAQP said:


> Good point but the sections between Langangen - Rugtvedt and Dørdal - Tvedestrand are almost exclusively 1+1 and substandard in my opinion so there is still a long way to go!


But the speed limit is even, the geometry is mostly good, so you normally can hold the speed signposted with normal traffic at those sections 

My guess is that by ca. 2025 Langangen-Dørdal, Akland-Tvedestrand and Arendal-Grimstad is also rebuilt as motorways. Dørdal-Akland I´m guessing will be 1+1/2+1 with central crash barrier for a long time.


----------



## Bjørne

Information video about the new stretch of E18 between Ørje and the Swedish border:






The stretch has been under construction since june 2015, and will be opened for traffic third quarter of 2017.


----------



## OAQP

Bjørne said:


> Information video about the new stretch of E18 between Ørje and the Swedish border:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The stretch has been under construction since june 2015, and will be opened for traffic third quarter of 2017.


This road is unfortunately being built as a 1+1 road with a very much sub-standard section through the village of Ørje (60km/h speed limit). 

It's a classic example of poor planning - particularly as the rest of the E18 project further westwards is being built to a motorway standard. Very sad indeed!!!hno:


----------



## pedrofil

The video says 70km/h though? 

Looks like a fairly poor solution through the village. But otherwise I think it's a good solution. The traffic levels over the border are nowhere near to defend a full 2+2 motorway.


----------



## pedrofil

http://www.vest24.no/nyheter/samferdsel/e39/ny-makt-pa-stord-vil-vingeklippe-hordfast/s/5-82-30997

Local authorities at Stord want to downgrade the E39 through Stord. Luckily it's a state plan, so they can't veto anything. This huge project is not mainly built for the people of Stord, but to improve the connection between Bergen and Stavanger. To achieve 2 hours travel time, so buses can compete with aviation, it has to be of the highest standard. I would prefer a high speed rail, but that will never happen, as things are looking now.


----------



## devo

pedrofil said:


> http://www.vest24.no/nyheter/samferdsel/e39/ny-makt-pa-stord-vil-vingeklippe-hordfast/s/5-82-30997
> 
> Local authorities at Stord want to downgrade the E39 through Stord. Luckily it's a state plan, so they can't veto anything. This huge project is not mainly built for the people of Stord, but to improve the connection between Bergen and Stavanger. To achieve 2 hours travel time, so buses can compete with aviation, it has to be of the highest standard. I would prefer a high speed rail, but that will never happen, as things are looking now.


These clueless politicians clearly defines what is wrong with infrastructure planning in Norway. The amendments they propose have no connection with the real world and they would, if they were to be carried out, cripple the entire project basically rendering it pointless to build. Subsequently, it will be a huge waste of money, when one has to come back to rebuild the entire road in 10-15 years.
Either keep the existing road, build a motorway or high speed rail. 

Trying to do something in the middle, as they propose, is like trying to make a cross between a shoe and a hat.


----------



## OAQP

devo said:


> These clueless politicians clearly defines what is wrong with infrastructure planning in Norway. The amendments they propose have no connection with the real world and they would, if they were to be carried out, cripple the entire project basically rendering it pointless to build. Subsequently, it will be a huge waste of money, when one has to come back to rebuild the entire road in 10-15 years.
> Either keep the existing road, build a motorway or high speed rail.
> 
> Trying to do something in the middle, as they propose, is like trying to make a cross between a shoe and a hat.


I totally agree and this reinforces my point about the E18 close to the Swedish border being built to a sub-standard level. I am pretty sure that the E18 section under construction will be rebuilt to motorway standard in 15 years time. 

There are several examples of this political incompetence. In particular, two horrible examples are the E6 north of Sarpsborg where a 1+2 road built in 1999 was rebuilt to a 2+2/3 motorway in 2010 and E18 through Porsgrunn where a 1+1/1+2 road completed in 1996 is being considered rebuilt as a 2+2 motorway at a huge cost.


hno:


----------



## Gogi555

Nice Bridge


----------



## ChrisZwolle

*E136 Tresfjord Bridge*

The Tresfjord Bridge opened to traffic today. It is part of E136 near Vestnes, and will eliminate the drive around Tresfjord to get to Vestnes or Ålesund. It is the sixth longest bridge in Norway at 1290 m. The bridge and nearby Vågstrand Tunnel (3665 m) are tolled.


----------



## Bjørne

(Kind of the same as the post above)

Presentation video of the new Tresfjord bridge (Tresfjordbrua), which opened for traffic yesterday, October 24, 2015:








> Tresfjordbrua er en 1 290 meter lang bru over Tresfjorden mellom Remmem og Vikebukt i Vestnes kommune. Den ble åpnet 24. oktober 2015, og gjorde at Europavei 136 ble ca. 12 km kortere.
> 
> I tillegg til selve brua ble det lagt ut 700 meter sjøfylling med steinmasse fra sprenging av Vågstrandstunnelen.
> 
> Innkreving av bompenger (med automatiske bomstasjoner på Vikebukt og Våge) startet da brua var ferdigstilt.
> 
> ---
> 
> The Tresfjord bridge is a 1 290 meters long bridge over Tresfjorden between Remmem and Vikebukt in Vestnes municipality. It was opened October 24, 2015, and made European Route 136 about 12 km shorter.
> 
> In addition to the bridge itself, 700 meters of land reclamation was laid using rock mass from the Vågstrand tunnel.
> 
> Toll collection (with automatic toll stations at Vikebukt and Våge) began when the bridge was finished.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

The Svinesund Bridge (E6) at the Sweden-Norway border switches to all-electronic tolling on 1 November. 

I think this leaves the Atlantic Ocean Tunnel (Atlanterhavstunnelen) as the lone remaining manual toll road on the Norwegian main road system?


----------



## Þróndeimr

A new Arbeiderpartiet county-major is questioning the ferry-free E39 increase in speed limit and lanes. The new plan, approved by the politicians in June 2015 gives 4 lanes and 110km/h, but now it seems AP's major want a rematch. The old plan is with 2 lanes and 90km/h.

http://www.nrk.no/hordaland/krever-svar-om-110-sone-pa-fergefri-e39-1.12628885

Concept on the Bjørnafjorden crossing with a floating bridge.


----------



## Hansadyret

Þróndeimr said:


> A new Arbeiderpartiet county-major is questioning the ferry-free E39 increase in speed limit and lanes. The new plan, approved by the politicians in June 2015 gives 4 lanes and 110km/h, but now it seems AP's major want a rematch. The old plan is with 2 lanes and 90km/h.
> 
> http://www.nrk.no/hordaland/krever-svar-om-110-sone-pa-fergefri-e39-1.12628885
> 
> Concept on the Bjørnafjorden crossing with a floating bridge.


Of course, that is what happens when socialists take over. The state should take over the planning of the road.


----------



## OAQP

This is just noise in my opinion and shows how myopic and incompetent some local politicians are. 

The Government, thankfully, decided in late 2013 that the 55km section between Os and Bokn should be planned as a 4-lane motorway with a 110km/h speed limit at a central government/national level and not at a local level as this road is of national importance. 

The rationale behind managing the planning permission process at a national/central government level (i.e. Ministry of Transport and Infrastructure) is exactly to avoid NIBMYs and incompetent multiple local authorities that would no doubt slow the process down and also, in a worst case scenario, decide to build the road to a lower standard. 

There are several examples of this already throughout Norway (I have already mentioned this in a previous post), most notably the E6 north of Sarpsborg and the E18 between Mysen and the Swedish border.


----------



## Bjørne

OAQP said:


> There are several examples of this already throughout Norway (I have already mentioned this in a previous post), most notably the E6 north of Sarpsborg and the E18 between Mysen and the Swedish border.


Just wondering, what's wrong with E6 north of Sarpsborg?


----------



## OAQP

Bjørne said:


> Just wondering, what's wrong with E6 north of Sarpsborg?


There is nothing wrong with E6 north of Sarpsborg today. My point, as mentioned in a previous point, is that the road was built as a 1+2 road in 1999 (as the politicians believed that this was sufficient for the next 50 years) and then completely rebuilt as a 2+2/3 road in 2009 at a huge additional cost. 

This is a great example of incompetence when it comes to strategic road planning. :bash:


----------



## Ingenioren

Politicians or vegvesenet? A more recent example is Solasplitten....


----------



## ChrisZwolle

*Fv. 557 Ringvei Vest, Bergen*

The second phase of Fylkesvei 557, also known as the western ring road of Bergen opens to traffic on 12 November 2015. It is a motorway project to extend Fv. 557 to Rv. 555 west of Bergen. Most of the project is underground and part of the 7.2 kilometer long Knappe Tunnel. The western ring road will improve access to the southwestern part of Bergen, including the airport.

The _2. byggetrinn_ will open to traffic on 12 November:


----------



## ChrisZwolle

The Folkedal Tunnel opens to traffic tomorrow. It is a 1360 meter long single-tube tunnel along county road 7. It is located along a side arm of the Hardanger Fjord, southwest of Granvin. The construction cost was 274 million kroner (€ 29.4 million).


----------



## pedrofil

Ringveg vest officially opened at 3 pm today!

Also: here are the alternatives for new E39 over Stord!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-g6_YIlxj8Q


----------



## Gsus

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0UFGgDmAaQ

Video of the new E6 between Jaktøyen and Storler south of Trondheim. As mentioned earlier in this thread, the climbing-lane north of the intersection with E39 i gone, but as for the rest it looks very good. The culvert and railroad-bridge seems wide enough for a third lane, although I don`t see that being constructed - ever. The bridge leading westbound part of E39 is also wide enough for two lanes as can be seen in the film. Thats good, and in my opinion far more important to prioritize than a grade separated intersection between E39 and the local road network, as has been debated a lot locally. Speed limit seems to be 100 km/h up to the new railroad-bridge, where the shoulders get narrower and I`m guessing it will be reduced to 80. 

A sad thing with this projects, just as for some other very important projects on the national road-network close to larger cities is that it`s put in a "city-package", where the tolls are paying for a lot of other projects in the the area. E16 in Sandvika was put on hold for a year because of lack of money, and I`m guessing that`s why the grade separated intersection on E39 and the climbing lane is removed from the plans.

For the section further up to Heimdal, which will be built at the same time theres a video out from 2013: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bIN_6NBnRgQ


----------



## Agent 006

Looks good. Probably not 100 km/h south of this stretch though, since it's might be a horizontal curve of 500 just north of Melhus. 20 m roads could have curves of 450 m if they were constructed between 2002 and 2008, as this one was (opened in 2005) hno: But I might be wrong.


----------



## Gsus

Agent 006 said:


> Looks good. Probably not 100 km/h south of this stretch though, since it's might be a horizontal curve of 500 just north of Melhus. 20 m roads could have curves of 450 m if they were constructed between 2002 and 2008, as this one was (opened in 2005) hno: But I might be wrong.


It would be natural to keep the 100km-strech as long as the road will be four laned, so I'm guessing they will raise the speed-limit a bit further south, as it will be natural to resign road as a motorway to the Melhus-intersection.

A slight correction  A minimum of 450-curves on 100 km/h-roads is accepted for all roads with a zoning-plan approved before then handbook-017 was revised in 2008. If a zoning-plan was not accepted by then, 700m would be counting, and non-finished plans would have had to be redrawn. But theres nothing wrong with resigning roads with these smalles curves to 100km/h, but they just wont be planned and then built anymore. Theres actually a road under construction in Norway today with a planned speed-limit of 100km/h that will have a 450m curve, with a 550m contra-curve.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

The Sandsfjord Bridge that opens to traffic on Friday:


----------



## OAQP

*Ringvei Vest - Signposted as Motorway?*

Does anyone know if this road is signposted as Motorway? What is the speed limit?



ChrisZwolle said:


> The second phase of Fylkesvei 557, also known as the western ring road of Bergen opens to traffic on 12 November 2015. It is a motorway project to extend Fv. 557 to Rv. 555 west of Bergen. Most of the project is underground and part of the 7.2 kilometer long Knappe Tunnel. The western ring road will improve access to the southwestern part of Bergen, including the airport.
> 
> The _2. byggetrinn_ will open to traffic on 12 November:


----------



## MattiG

ChrisZwolle said:


> The Sandsfjord Bridge that opens to traffic on Friday:


There are projects, which I do not always understand. The 10-minute ferry connection Sand-Ropeid is replaced by a new route being 30 kilometers longer.


----------



## Þróndeimr

Developers of Trondheimsfjordbrua expect construction start withinn two years if everything goes as planned. The bridge will be a combined floating and suspension bridge, 6700m in lenght, a 700m wide main span with 90m clearance below. The bridge is expected to have a price tag just below 1 billion euros.

http://www.fosna-folket.no/nyheter/2015/11/26/–-Kan-bli-byggestart-om-to-år-11855515.ece


----------



## Stafangr

MattiG said:


> There are projects, which I do not always understand. The 10-minute ferry connection Sand-Ropeid is replaced by a new route being 30 kilometers longer.


What about it don't you understand?


----------



## MattiG

Stafangr said:


> What about it don't you understand?


About nothing. Investment cost 80 million euro, AADT 450, negative time saving.

Yes, I know that the state of Norway calculates the infrastructure investments using some cosmic math and non-euclidean geometry, which we average people just cannot understand.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

The new bridge is indeed quite a detour for east-west traffic. North-south traffic benefits more, the ferry has a half hour schedule. I'm guessing it was built mainly to improve traffic from Sauda to Stavanger. There is some kind of plant in Sauda. Sand will lose the most connectivity if the ferry is discontinued. Other places in eastern Suldal are more like spread out houses than actual villages or towns.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

*Sandsfjord Bridge*

Two more photos of the Sandsfjord Bridge that opened to traffic today. It has a 290 m main span and is at maximum 73 m above the water. The bridge construction cost was 236 million kroner (€ 25.6 million). (location)


----------



## Stafangr

The main financial argument for building a bridge as costly as this one in such a rural area, is that it replaces a ferry-connection. When the cost and savings are calculated, they include the cost of subsidies to the ferry for a number of years.

This bridge will also make the north-eastern part of Ryfylke (traditional district) "landfast", as this region is cut off from Haugesund (and Stavanger) by fjords. When Ryfast is completed, there will be only one ferry-crossing left in mainland Ryfylke.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

*Lærdal Tunnel*

The Lærdal Tunnel turns 15 today. The world's longest highway tunnel (24509 m) opened on 27 November 2000. 


E16 Laerdal Tunnel-2 by European Roads, on Flickr


E16 Laerdal Tunnel-3 by European Roads, on Flickr


----------



## pedrofil

*Government chooses "K5" alternative for Arna - Voss*

The government has chosen the "K5" alternative between Arna (Bergen) and Voss.

This is combi rail and road development, like the future Ringeriksbanen and the recently completed E6/Dovrebanen along Mjøsa. It will be completed in two stages: Arna - Stanghelle and Stanghelle - Voss. 

According to Statens Vegvesen and Jernbaneverket the planning process will be initiated ASAP, and they expect to "put the shovel in the ground" as soon as the double-track from Bergen to Arna is completed. It's a state plan with full support locally from all (?) local political parties, and affected municipalities, so I expect the only potential hinderance or delay for this project could be national prioritization for other projects (like E39) or technical difficulties.

Travel times for Arna - Voss will be,
train: 24 minutes (reduced from 63 min.)
road: 46 minutes (reduced from 72 min.)


----------



## ukraroad

How much km are in between? I wonder as it will take 46 mins...


----------



## ChrisZwolle

I drove that segment of E16 last year. It's pretty busy out of Bergen, but traffic volumes drop substantially after each village, especially past Trengereid where County Road 7 splits off. It's a very nice road to drive in a 'cruise' mode, you can drive long distances in the highest gear without having to slow down for roundabouts, villages or traffic lights. It's one of the few stretches where I managed to get a fuel consumption of 4 L / 100 km (petrol car). 

But E16 is frequently blocked due to landslides. Are there still plans for the tunnel from Bergen to Arna that will cut the distance into Bergen by half or more?


----------



## Gsus

ChrisZwolle said:


> Are there still plans for the tunnel from Bergen to Arna that will cut the distance into Bergen by half or more?


Basicly no. Until some years ago there was, but the Nygårdstangen intersection in centrail Bergen would become even more congested during rush-hour, and Bergen is having serious problems with air-pollution during winters. 

Recent plans are to build a motorway east of Bergen (Fjøsanger-Indre Arna-Vågsbotn) to get the through-traffic around the city, and not having everyone coming either to norther or southern part of the city going right through the more central parts of Bergen. In my opinion, a much better solution than the old plan for the Arna tunnel. 

I mean that the railroad between Arna and Bergen should still be the fastest link in from the east to reduce congestions as much as possible, as there`s no road parallell today. Building the Arna tunnel will also affect to much of the other main roads in central Bergen too, as if they were not congested enough.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

*Ryfast, Stavanger*

The deepest point of the Ryfylke Tunnel near Stavanger has been reached last night. It reaches 292 meters below sea level. Breakthrough is expected in 2017. The twin-tube tunnel is 14.3 kilometers long.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

*E39 Sulafjord Bridge*

A render of a possible suspension bridge across the Sulafjord near Hareid, not far from Ålesund. If built, it would be by far the longest suspension bridge in the world, the span would be around 2800 meters, which is considerably longer than the current record of 1991 m of the Akashi Kaikyō Bridge in Japan.






edit: possible design:


----------



## Ingenioren

A series of 360 panoramas from E6 Gudbrandsdal construction:

http://www.geo360.net/e6fryasjoa/


----------



## ChrisZwolle

*E39 Sulafjord Bridge*

Another alternative is a two-span suspension bridge with a 'gravity based structure' (GBS) in the middle. This would be a 2 x 2.060 meter main span (world record) and include a *745 meter tall* pylon (several different heights are mentioned with this proposal).















Simply mind-boggling. :banana:


----------



## ChrisZwolle

*E6, Nordland*

Another big project is coming to E6 in northern Norway, a realignment north of Fauske. This will reduce driving distance by 11 km and driving time by 25 minutes. It could start in 2018.

A new suspension bridge is planned across the Leirfjord, with a main span of 820 meters, which would make it the fourth longest in Norway and 13th longest in Europe. Not as gigantic as the Sulafjord bridge discussed above, but impressive nonetheless.


----------



## Suburbanist

Wouldn't this render two recently (1990s) tunnels kinda useless?


----------



## Þróndeimr

Suburbanist said:


> Wouldn't this render two recently (1990s) tunnels kinda useless?


Yes it would, still, that section, and its tunnels is of poor standard. Basically, most of E6 between Fauske and Narvik (250km) needs a larger upgrade as driving there is very slow.


----------



## MattiG

ChrisZwolle said:


> Another big project is coming to E6 in northern Norway, a realignment north of Fauske. This will reduce driving distance by 11 km and driving time by 25 minutes. It could start in 2018.
> 
> A new suspension bridge is planned across the Leirfjord, with a main span of 820 meters, which would make it the fourth longest in Norway and 13th longest in Europe. Not as gigantic as the Sulafjord bridge discussed above, but impressive nonetheless.


So, the E6 will return to its pre-1986 alignment through Bonnådalen? Only the Somnerset-Bonåsjøen ferry will be replaced by a bridge?


----------



## hammersklavier

Suburbanist said:


> Wouldn't this render two recently (1990s) tunnels kinda useless?


You say tomayto, I say tomahto. It occurs to me that, with this realignment, the older alignment north of Fauske can be repurposed for other uses. Such as connecting the Ofoten (Iron Ore) Line to the Norwegian mainline network...


----------



## ChrisZwolle

*E6 Hålogaland Bridge*

Progress on the Hålogaland Bridge near Narvik.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

ChrisZwolle said:


> Another alternative is a two-span suspension bridge with a 'gravity based structure' (GBS) in the middle. This would be a 2 x 2.060 meter main span (world record) and include a *745 meter tall* pylon (several different heights are mentioned with this proposal).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Simply mind-boggling. :banana:


Indeed. a perhaps more relevant comparison structure wise (but not in terms of revenue) would be the Troll A platform of the North Sea, though. 

















Troll A during tow. Note that about half of the structure is submerged.


----------



## g.spinoza

Is the 745-m height measured from the sea bedrock or from its surface?


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

From the sea bottom. The construction seems similar to the condeep concept for offshore oil platforms. As can be seen in the movie, one advantage is that the construction is made floating in sheltered waters, and then towed to the site of the bridge before being sunk in a controlled way down to the bottom. Another advantage is the large surface area between the sea bottom and the construction. I do not know the details of this fjord, but often there are hundreds of meters with deposits, and making fundaments at 450 m depth is in any case case challenging.

Norwegian fjords are ideal for construction of condeep structures, as they often are of great depth, and at the same time offer some shelter.


----------



## metasmurf

*Fylkesvei 17 at Sjonfjellet near Nesna, Nordland*









Mountain Road I. by Arne Langset


----------



## ChrisZwolle

The 520 meter long Kråkmo Tunnel opened to traffic today along E6 in Nordland. It's located in Hamarøy municipality.


----------



## Suburbanist

Does E6 have any bridge with embedded heating?


----------



## ChrisZwolle

*Karmsund Bridge*

The Karmsund Bridge spans Karmsundet, a narrow strait near the city of Haugesund. It was built in 1955 and is functionally obsolete and structurally deficient. 

A study for the regional transportation of Haugesund has now been completed. The recommended alternative is a new four-lane bridge with bike lanes just south of the existing bridge. The cost of the bridge is estimated at 1 billion kr. (€ 100 million).

The existing 1955 bridge is a through arch bridge.


----------



## Suburbanist

What's the clearance of the existing bridge?


----------



## ChrisZwolle

46 meters. It is a busy shipping lane because it's protected from the heavy seas around the coast.


----------



## Sunfuns

Can't we really build these days bridges that last longer than that? 60 years with adequate repairs is very little... Should last at least few centuries! Some of the old bridges have managed that.


----------



## devo

Most modern bridges have design life. The Varodd Bridge here in Kristiansand was designed to last 50 years. It was built in 1956 and is now coming up to its 60th year, thus the cost of repearing it is increasing every year. (It will be replaced by a new bridge in 2019.)

A bridge that will last 200 years is quite unproblomatic to build, but the chances for it being torn down at a quarter of its lifespan is quite high, therefore cheaper options are chosen.


----------



## Sunfuns

True, unless maybe you build something special. I expect Golden gate bridge gate to still be there 200 years from now.


----------



## Ingenioren

It looks quite simular to Fredrikstad bridge that is undergoing heavy rehab this year.


----------



## MattiG

devo said:


> Most modern bridges have design life. The Varodd Bridge here in Kristiansand was designed to last 50 years. It was built in 1956 and is now coming up to its 60th year, thus the cost of repearing it is increasing every year. (It will be replaced by a new bridge in 2019.)
> 
> A bridge that will last 200 years is quite unproblomatic to build, but the chances for it being torn down at a quarter of its lifespan is quite high, therefore cheaper options are chosen.


However, bridges and other infrastructure is not about cost only, but a part of national heritage, too.

Standard (boring) bridges are subject to be replaced every now and then. But Great Design should be saved for the coming generations, even if there are embedded costs. (I do not believe that there is any more a valid business case to have a Royal Palace on the most expensive land of Oslo. Still, AFAIK, it is not planned to be replaced by something more useful.)

The Karmsund bridge is a nice piece of history. Of course, it does not match with the current need for logistics, even if the alternative T-Forbindelsen delivers a parallel route. There are several options to develop the corridors to Karmøy, and most of them will save the existing bridge. The bridge needs reparation, but this a case for all bridges. Great bridges are like cathedrals: always under reparation.


----------



## Rob73

devo said:


> A bridge that will last 200 years is quite unproblomatic to build, but the chances for it being torn down at a quarter of its lifespan is quite high, therefore cheaper options are chosen.


Or not, the Golden Gate and Sydney Harbour Bridges will still be there long after I'm dead. Put them in the right location to start with and they should be able to last as long as needed.


----------



## Gsus

http://www.nrk.no/sorlandet/vil-spare-millioner-med-smalere-motorvei-1.12740328

The new government company that is scheduled to plan and construct a lot of the new motorways in Norway the next couple of decades discusses using one cross-section, instead of the two that the road administration uses today (20m and 23m), in an alleged attempt to save money. As an example 21 meters is mentioned as a possibly new norm. If this is told correctly by the journalist, I´m wondering if they`ve checked the expected traffic amount on the section they are now taking over from the road administration, as most of them will fall under the criteas of the 20m cross-section. 

Some things in the article is a bit wrong afaik. The cross-section used in Sweden is 21,5 meter, right? But is this the only normal cross-section used in Sweden on motorways these days?... Also, E18 Kristiansand-Grimstad has a normal cross-section of 20 meters, not 21 as mentioned in the article.


----------



## IceCheese

Isn't speed limit a factor here? If they still stand by their promise to build new motorways for 130 km/h, I'd imagine Vegvesenet to require some additional width.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Wasn't the plan to build new motorways to 110 km/h standard?


----------



## IceCheese

^^They current government had it in their inauguration platform to start planning for 130 km/h. E39 in western Norway has been pointed by Vegvesenet as a possible candidate: http://www.bt.no/nyheter/lokalt/Foreslar-130-kmt-pa-nye-E39-3055759.html


----------



## Gsus

IceCheese said:


> ^^They current government had it in their inauguration platform to start planning for 130 km/h. E39 in western Norway has been pointed by Vegvesenet as a possible candidate: http://www.bt.no/nyheter/lokalt/Foreslar-130-kmt-pa-nye-E39-3055759.html


It all depend what minimum curvature and dozing they use. Pretty much up to the what the project management wants, and then whats being planned. But I`ve read statements in newspapers where the project management on E39 between Kristiansand and Ålgård, aswell as Aksdal to Os in the link above has talked about planning for 130. Theres no official documents from the transport department regarding planning for any more than 110km/h tho.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

It seems a bit pointless to build motorways for 130 km/h in Norway. There will very likely be speed limit reductions at every tunnel. It also drives the cost up considerably. I'd rather have more motorway mileage at 110 km/h than a few stretches at 130 km/h that eat up all the budget.


----------



## devo

A possible solution for how 21 m could work: 3 | 3,5 · 3,5 |1| 3,5 · 3,5 | 3.
This would give proper hard shoulders but would probably require a concrete median?

But I'm not sure what they mean when they talk about saving money. Is it the width of the cross section or the entire corridor? Because the corridor is basically identical in 20 m and 23 m. Which is why it's really pointless to have all these different standards from an environmental perspective. (as in, a narrower road would use less land, which would probably only be true in a perfectly straight alignment without embankments).


----------



## Uppsala

How is it going now with the repair of Skjeggestad bridge? How is it look like now?


----------



## OAQP

ChrisZwolle said:


> It seems a bit pointless to build motorways for 130 km/h in Norway. There will very likely be speed limit reductions at every tunnel. It also drives the cost up considerably. I'd rather have more motorway mileage at 110 km/h than a few stretches at 130 km/h that eat up all the budget.


130km/h is a good starting point for bargaining with (local) politicians that want 90km/h or 100km/h standard roads. The result is likely to be to at least a 110km/h standard.


----------



## Suburbanist

Not a new video, but I'm curious where this was done 



.


Quite impressive flying.


----------



## MattiG

Suburbanist said:


> Not a new video, but I'm curious where this was done.
> 
> 
> Quite impressive flying.


In Oppdølstranda at the old alignment of the road 70, between two tunnels.

https://www.google.fi/maps/search/Oppdøl+norway/@62.7213525,8.5521805,1044m/data=!3m1!1e3


----------



## cinxxx

Hi guys!
Do you know why Google Maps routes like this, which is 1 hour slower, than this?

I'm currently researching a route between Bergen and Trondheim, with stops in Flam, Borgund, Alesund, Geiranger, Trollstigen, Atlantic road, Kristiansund.
Should I consider something else? You have some recommendations?
Before getting there, my plan would be to fly to Oslo, then to Stavanger, then fly to Bergen. Looks much faster than driving and not expensive.

Renting a car in Norway is pretty expensive. I would consider flying to Lofoten and drive 2 days around, then drive to Tromso, but I don't know, just for that, hiring another car is kind of expensive.
Alternative would be to the drive from Trondheim but it's around 9 hours, and the costs I researched for the car would be around 1000€, large extra costs, because I would fly back to Oslo from the North.

*This is I don't have more than 2 weeks for this trip*


----------



## ChrisZwolle

E16 is a pretty fast route, you can do 80 km/h most of the time from Voss to Bergen. However, that northern route is a very low standard and narrow road, where you likely won't get over 60 km/h most of the time.

Don't underestimate the travel time in Norway. In 2014 I drove west to east along E16 from Voss to Torsby and it took me 10.5 hours to cover 550 km including a few brief photo stops and two short side trips (no more than 15 km from E16). I was totally exhausted because the road is never straight. Traffic itself is hardly a problem. The lack of motorways doesn't mean you'll get stuck behind trucks all the time like in central and western Europe.


----------



## cinxxx

^^The other option would be to fly from Bergen to Alesund, rent a car there, and miss out on the Flam-Myrdal attraction.


----------



## MattiG

cinxxx said:


> Hi guys!
> Do you know why Google Maps routes like this, which is 1 hour slower, than this?
> 
> I'm currently researching a route between Bergen and Trondheim, with stops in Flam, Borgund, Alesund, Geiranger, Trollstigen, Atlantic road, Kristiansund.
> Should I consider something else? You have some recommendations?
> Before getting there, my plan would be to fly to Oslo, then to Stavanger, then fly to Bergen. Looks much faster than driving and not expensive.
> 
> Renting a car in Norway is pretty expensive. I would consider flying to Lofoten and drive 2 days around, then drive to Tromso, but I don't know, just for that, hiring another car is kind of expensive.
> Alternative would be to the drive from Trondheim but it's around 9 hours, and the costs I researched for the car would be around 1000€, large extra costs, because I would fly back to Oslo from the North.
> 
> *This is I don't have more than 2 weeks for this trip*


Well...

Rule 1: Do not try too much. Especially on Norway. 200 km a day is much.

Rule 2: Do not try too much. Norway will probably stay where it is now. If you want to make yourself familiar with several areas of Norway, then make several trips over years.

Rule 3: Do not try too much. The slower the road is the more scenic it typically is. There nothing sexy on driving the E16 from Voss to Bergen. The Hardagerfjord option over 7 creates more adrenaline as it is more dangerous. The old road 13 over Hamlagrø is not dangerous, but it has a scenic hairpin descent to Dale. My absolute favorite is the slowest one: road 569 over Stamneshella and Eidslandet. Narrow road carved into rock, and the one-lane exciting Modalstunnelen.

https://www.google.fi/maps/@60.6609...4!1s55ltYZfuSDdMeaxRHqihGw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

https://www.google.fi/maps/@60.7847...4!1sL6qyJXCslUkBPHEOgdk6jw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656


----------



## metasmurf

*E6 across Saltfjellet, Nordland*





Saltfjellet by Helgemainn

Available in HD.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

cinxxx said:


> Hi guys!
> Do you know why Google Maps routes like this, which is 1 hour slower, than this?
> 
> I'm currently researching a route between Bergen and Trondheim, with stops in Flam, Borgund, Alesund, Geiranger, Trollstigen, Atlantic road, Kristiansund.
> Should I consider something else? You have some recommendations?
> Before getting there, my plan would be to fly to Oslo, then to Stavanger, then fly to Bergen. Looks much faster than driving and not expensive.
> 
> Renting a car in Norway is pretty expensive. I would consider flying to Lofoten and drive 2 days around, then drive to Tromso, but I don't know, just for that, hiring another car is kind of expensive.
> Alternative would be to the drive from Trondheim but it's around 9 hours, and the costs I researched for the car would be around 1000€, large extra costs, because I would fly back to Oslo from the North.
> 
> *This is I don't have more than 2 weeks for this trip*


I agree with the rest, it would probably be best to reduce the scope of the trip if you only have two weeks, unless you are very fond of driving. Flying is an efficient way of getting between cities, but then you will miss the scenery. 

My favorite route between Bergen and Trondheim, and the shortest in distance, is via Øvre Årdal and Sognefjellet (rv 55), but then you will miss eg Geiranger. There is no way you get from Trondheim to Lofoten in 9 hours, with non - stop driving you will perhaps reach Bodø. 

And Chris, personally I find straight roads more challenging than winding ones, as it takes more effort to keep concentrated for hours with the former, but perhaps it is a cultural thing ;-)


----------



## metasmurf

54°26′S 3°24′E;130217223 said:


> And Chris, personally I find straight roads more challenging than winding ones, as it takes more effort to keep concentrated for hours with the former, but perhaps it is a cultural thing ;-)


I drove in Norway this summer, mostly on Fv 17 and I got mentally exhausted having to be super focused all the time because of narrow roads, curves, hills, slow down for oncoming traffic etc. It's just a totally different way of driving than what I'm used to.


----------



## cinxxx

54°26′S 3°24′E;130217223 said:


> There is no way you get from Trondheim to Lofoten in 9 hours, with non - stop driving you will perhaps reach Bodø.


Yes, you're right, I actually looked at the road to Bodø.

Anyway, I revised my plan, and came up with this:

Munich-Oslo (morning) + Oslo + Nighttrain to Stavanger
Stavanger + Pulpit Rock
Stavanger-Bergen (by plane or bus) + Bergen
Bergen
Bergen-Flam-Myrdal-Borgund-Fossbergom
Fossbergom-Geiranger-Trollstigen-Alesund
Alesund-Atlantic Road-Trondheim
Trondheim
Trondheim-Tromso (morning flight) + Tromso 
Tromso + Tromso-Oslo (evening flight)
Oslo
Oslo
Oslo-Munich (morning flight)

I think I could try to split the 3 day roadtrip into 4 days somehow to make the whole think more relaxed and leave just 2 days for Oslo.

Or I could give up on Tromso. I looked at pictures from there, not sure if the city is so impressive. 
It also adds pretty much extra costs because of the extra flight.
But I could consider going there in the winter?


----------



## ChrisZwolle

If you want to see aurora borealis (northern lights) then Tromsø is a good location, as long as there isn't a big weather system moving in. My brother took a winter road trip to the North Cape last month and he had some pretty poor weather, they could only see the aurora borealis a few times.


----------



## MattiG

cinxxx said:


> Yes, you're right, I actually looked at the road to Bodø.
> 
> Anyway, I revised my plan, and came up with this:
> 
> Munich-Oslo (morning) + Oslo + Nighttrain to Stavanger
> Stavanger + Pulpit Rock
> Stavanger-Bergen (by plane or bus) + Bergen
> Bergen
> Bergen-Flam-Myrdal-Borgund-Fossbergom
> Fossbergom-Geiranger-Trollstigen-Alesund
> Alesund-Atlantic Road-Trondheim
> Trondheim
> Trondheim-Tromso (morning flight) + Tromso
> Tromso + Tromso-Oslo (evening flight)
> Oslo
> Oslo
> Oslo-Munich (morning flight)
> 
> I think I could try to split the 3 day roadtrip into 4 days somehow to make the whole think more relaxed and leave just 2 days for Oslo.
> 
> Or I could give up on Tromso. I looked at pictures from there, not sure if the city is so impressive.
> It also adds pretty much extra costs because of the extra flight.
> But I could consider going there in the winter?


To be honest, this looks an ADHD class agenda. A lot of rushing across the country but less enjoying it.

I recommend concentrating into one focus area, such as the SW Norway. Then build an agenda around the sights you would like to see. Do not make the agenda too tight but keep it flexible. 

How about this Oslo-based skeleton agenda for 7-10 days:

Oslo-Telemark-Dalen-Sirdal-Prekestolen-Røldal-Bergen-Eidslandet-Voss-Flåm-Aurlandvegen-Laerdal-Borgund-Tyinkrysset-Øvre Årdal-Turtagrø-Sognefjell-Geiranger-Trollstigen-Raumadalen-Valdres-Oslo.

It would give a very good overview what Norway is about, and it leads to many top highlights.


----------



## cinxxx

^^Thanks for the suggestion.

Your plan actually looks good. I would add the Atlantic road to it though.
But you have around 2500 km there, doing that in 10 days with no motorways, maybe not so easy .
An alternative to it would be to pay a little more, leave the car for example in Kristianshund or Alesund, and fly back to Oslo. That would save around 900 km driving...

EDIT: We will see in the end how we will do it.
Rushing around is not such a big deal for us and may sound better than 10 days driving completely non-motorways.
We don't have a clear date yet, only that it would be in July. 
My only fear is that it could rain a lot and then it would suck...


----------



## Ingenioren

Expect rain, or you'll be disappointed, Bergen has rain almost every day.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Some valleys in Norway are really dry though. Bergen has an annual precipitation of 2250 mm, while Otta, only 275 km away as the crow flies, has an annual precipitation of 375 mm, which is less than Valencia or Málaga.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

ChrisZwolle said:


> If you want to see aurora borealis (northern lights) then Tromsø is a good location, as long as there isn't a big weather system moving in. My brother took a winter road trip to the North Cape last month and he had some pretty poor weather, they could only see the aurora borealis a few times.


Even in Troms(ø) the brightness will of course also be dependent on the solar wind activity. http://www.aurora-service.eu/aurora-school/all-about-the-kp-index/

Personally I think Northern Norway is the most spectacular part of Scandinavia, but it is called remote for a reason, and as a tourist it is almost pointless to rush through in a couple of days. If you are short on time during your Norway visit, focus on a single region and skip the cities. If you are worried about high car rental costs, notice that Norway is only a couple of hours away from Denmark via ferry. As Chris indicates, the summer climate is generally somewhat dryer in the south - east of the country, but that's not where you find spectacular fjords or the wildest mountains.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

ChrisZwolle said:


> Some valleys in Norway are really dry though. Bergen has an annual precipitation of 2250 mm, while Otta, only 275 km away as the crow flies, has an annual precipitation of 375 mm, which is less than Valencia or Málaga.


The differences can in fact be even more extreme. 

The driest place in Norway is Skjåk, which actually west of Otta, with only 278 mm precipitation. The wettest place is Brekke at the Sognefjorden, 163 km away, with 3575 mm. In comparison Oslo has around 700 and Trondheim around 900. For a tourist probably the number of rainy days is of higher interest. Here the tendency is the same, but generally the rain is less intense the further north you get.


----------



## MattiG

Ingenioren said:


> Expect rain, or you'll be disappointed, Bergen has rain almost every day.


The long term average is about 230 rainy days a year. If there is a shower of five minutes, the day is counted a rainy day.

Anyway, the Bergen fish market is always worth a visit, whether it rains or not.

(For many years ago, there was a conference for IT professionals in Bergen. A group of gentlemen, I do not reveal the nationality, had had a long evening and night in the hotel bar. The gentlemen walked to the conference hall over the Fish Market, and one of the group got suddenly hungry. He bought a round bread with vegetables. The bread was too hard to eat, and the happy owner thought it was deep frozen, and he put it into his pocket to melt. After a while, the bread started moving in the pocket. At the closer look, it was not a bread at all. It was a living crab, and vegetables were the legs of the crab.)


----------



## cinxxx

I the cities if it rains for a few hours, it's not such a big deal, you find somewhere to hide, you can even walk if it doesn't rain heavily.
But it would be crap if it would rain for example when I would like to hike to Preikestolen or drive on Trollstigen, Geiranger, Atlantic road. 

But I don't want to keep this thread off-topic


----------



## OulaL

ChrisZwolle said:


> If you want to see aurora borealis (northern lights) then Tromsø is a good location, as long as there isn't a big weather system moving in. My brother took a winter road trip to the North Cape last month and he had some pretty poor weather, they could only see the aurora borealis a few times.


Which time of the year were we talking about?

If summer, there obviously aren't any northern lights visible in Tromsø. If winter, then Trollstigen (part of cinxxx' plan) is out of question.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

cinxxx said:


> I the cities if it rains for a few hours, it's not such a big deal, you find somewhere to hide, you can even walk if it doesn't rain heavily.
> But it would be crap if it would rain for example when I would like to hike to Preikestolen or drive on Trollstigen, Geiranger, Atlantic road.
> 
> But I don't want to keep this thread off-topic


That's why you need some more days. However, with only good weather (or clothing incompatible with typical Norwegian conditions) you will never understand the Norwegian psychology ;-) 
There is no such thing as bad weather 

The same saying in Norwegian - English comes here at 3:50...


----------



## cinxxx

^^I read that saying on some blog too 
We will definitely buy and bring some wind and water proof clothes with us.


----------



## Suburbanist

I want to drive to Nordkap and Kirkenes, than back via Sweden or Filand+ferry. I need time for that, though, even driving straight ahead to Kirkenes via Sweden takes 3100km, which, to become not very tiresome, require 3 1/2 days of driving. And then some other 10-12 days to explore Norway, such as the Northern cities, the coastal Rv17 road, and the fjords in the center of the country, plus 2 days to drive home, so it is a 3-week trip (and an expensive one, hotels in the Northern cities are expensive, in some places even during winter (Hammerfest or Honningsvág) as I checked (though I'd obviously not go on a driving trip to the Arctic in winter).


----------



## Suburbanist

54°26′S 3°24′E;130236849 said:


> That's why you need some more days. However, with only good weather (or clothing incompatible with typical Norwegian conditions) you will never understand the Norwegian psychology ;-)
> There is no such thing as bad weather
> 
> The same saying in Norwegian - English comes here at 3:50...


^^ Is that the guy who recorded that mildly annoying "what does the fox say" song?

anyway, keeping the off-topic: I read some months ago that certain Norwegian schools, with a more "keep kids in contact with nature" philosophy, have 2 or 3 periods per week when students get out to some nearby wood/park, no matter the weather, be it rain or snow, unless they want to stay indoors which is discouraged. I read this applies to kids as young as 6 years old.


----------



## Ingenioren

^ We had to go out 5 times per day for 10 minutes, unless it was colder than -10 celsius.

My kids get cranky if they haven't been outside for a day. In kindergarden they are outside atleast one hour aswell.


----------



## MattiG

OulaL said:


> Which time of the year were we talking about?
> 
> If summer, there obviously aren't any northern lights visible in Tromsø. If winter, then Trollstigen (part of cinxxx' plan) is out of question.


Even during winter, the northern lights are barely visible in any city. The light pollution kills the very delicate light from the auroras. That is why the best spotting places are 50+ kilometers apart cities and bigger villages.

There are a number of things to do for preparations:

1) Get warm clothes. Really warm, and do not forget warm shoes with a thick bottom. The cold nights are the best for spotting.

2) Time and luck are needed. Even if the probability to see auroras is high in the north, they are not there every night. 

3) Join some mailing list of aurora watchers. The links to the forecast sites are useful.

4) The best auroras usually appear before midnight.

5) If you want to take photos, take spare batteries with you and keep them as close to your body as possible to keep them warm. If your camera supports raw mode then learn on how to take and tune raw photos.


----------



## MattiG

cinxxx said:


> ^^Thanks for the suggestion.
> 
> Your plan actually looks good. I would add the Atlantic road to it though.
> But you have around 2500 km there, doing that in 10 days with no motorways, maybe not so easy .
> An alternative to it would be to pay a little more, leave the car for example in Kristianshund or Alesund, and fly back to Oslo. That would save around 900 km driving...


The one-way rental may turn rather expensive.

Things are not black-and white: There are (rather) good roads in Norway, too. The itinerary may be based on a few quick drives, thus making it possible to make a moderate trip within a moderate timescale. For example, the 400 km return trip from Trollstigen to Oslo Airport can be made in about 6-7 hours. Typically, the roads over highlands ('vidda' in Norwegian) are quite fast compared to those cliffhanger-class hairpin roads at the outer edges of the mountains.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Ryfylke Tunnel progress:


----------



## italystf

Suburbanist said:


> I want to drive to Nordkap and Kirkenes, than back via Sweden or Filand+ferry. I need time for that, though, even driving straight ahead to Kirkenes via Sweden takes 3100km, which, to become not very tiresome, require 3 1/2 days of driving. And then some other 10-12 days to explore Norway, such as the Northern cities, the coastal Rv17 road, and the fjords in the center of the country, plus 2 days to drive home, so it is a 3-week trip (and an expensive one, hotels in the Northern cities are expensive, in some places even during winter (Hammerfest or Honningsvág) as I checked (though I'd obviously not go on a driving trip to the Arctic in winter).


The best (and probably the cheapest) way to do a such trip would be to rent a RV, you don't have to worry where to sleep and you can easily change your plan.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

*E6 Hålogaland Bridge*

The first pylon of the Hålogaland Bridge of E6 north of Narvik has been topped out at 174 meters. The northern pylon will be topped out by Easter at 167 m.

The pylons will measure 179.1 m and 173.5 m when everything is installed.


----------



## cinxxx

ChrisZwolle said:


> Ryfylke Tunnel progress:


When is it planned to be finished?
From what I read the tunnel is part of the Ryfast project which also includes Hundvågtunnel (5500 meters). I read about 2019 everything including some access tunnels, but I guess the 2 tunnels can function independent of each other.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

italystf said:


> The best (and probably the cheapest) way to do a such trip would be to rent a RV, you don't have to worry where to sleep and you can easily change your plan.


Except that some of the most scenic roads are really winding, narrow, and/or steep and hence are not suitable for RVs, and the choice will be a source of frustration for the vacationer and potential hate object among fellow motorists. Another disadvantage is that you could be somewhat detached from the local people. There are other ways of being flexible when traveling in Norway and Sweden, potentially to even lower costs. With what you save on RV rental and fuel you can probably easily afford to rent eg cabins at camping sites or other low-cost accommodation. If you are really on a shoestring, bring a tent, which you in Norway and Sweden are allowed to put up almost anywhere.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Hurricane-force winds at the Måløy Bridge in western Norway. 43 m/s is the equivalent of a category 2 hurricane, but I don't know if it's a gust or sustained winds.


----------



## Rob73

MattiG said:


> The one-way rental may turn rather expensive.
> 
> Things are not black-and white: There are (rather) good roads in Norway, too. The itinerary may be based on a few quick drives, thus making it possible to make a moderate trip within a moderate timescale. For example, the 400 km return trip from Trollstigen to Oslo Airport can be made in about 6-7 hours. Typically, the roads over highlands ('vidda' in Norwegian) are quite fast compared to those cliffhanger-class hairpin roads at the outer edges of the mountains.


Gardermoen to Trollstigen return in 6-7 hours, who are you trying to kid? The shortest route is using the E6, it's a 6 hour drive there, then you'll stop at the top for a coffee and cake for at least and hour, then a 6-7 hour drive back.

The roads over the mountains are not quick, they are generally narrow, tight and not made for travelling fast on.


----------



## OulaL

Rob73 said:


> Gardermoen to Trollstigen return in 6-7 hours, who are you trying to kid? The shortest route is using the E6, it's a 6 hour drive there, then you'll stop at the top for a coffee and cake for at least and hour, then a 6-7 hour drive back.
> 
> The roads over the mountains are not quick, they are generally narrow, tight and not made for travelling fast on.


This is a linguistic issue. Return trip is "coming back from wherever they are to the starting point", and its Finnish counterpart "paluumatka" is used exclusively in this meaning; but in English it is apparently also used for "going from the starting point to some other point and then coming back".

There was an idea about renting a car in Gardermoen, doing some days' sightseeing in the fjords from Bergen to Trollstigen, and then making the "return" straight to Gardermoen. In other words, the word "return" discussed here refers to a one way journey, which you and MattiG apparently agree to take 6-7 hours.


----------



## DanielFigFoz

Yes a return trip is going and coming.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

ChrisZwolle said:


> Hurricane-force winds at the Måløy Bridge in western Norway. 43 m/s is the equivalent of a category 2 hurricane, but I don't know if it's a gust or sustained winds.


It could be sustained actually. Kråkenes not too far away measured 48.9 m/s, which is the strongest sustained wind ever officially recorded. It should be said that physical wind measurements like this have not been going on for a very long time, and they are still sometimes knocked out if the wind is too strong. Kråkenes was for instance not yet in operation when the infamour new years eve storm hit Norway January 1st 1992.


----------



## MattiG

Rob73 said:


> Gardermoen to Trollstigen return in 6-7 hours, who are you trying to kid? The shortest route is using the E6, it's a 6 hour drive there, then you'll stop at the top for a coffee and cake for at least and hour, then a 6-7 hour drive back.
> 
> The roads over the mountains are not quick, they are generally narrow, tight and not made for travelling fast on.


The comment was related to an earlier itinerary, not to a trip Oslo-Trollstigen-Oslo. Please read the whole thread.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

*Bergen congestion charge*

A variable congestion charge was introduced in Bergen today. Up until yesterday, the toll was 25 NOK throughout the day. Starting today, it is 45 NOK during rush hour and 19 NOK outside rush hour. Unlike for example the Swedish congestion charge, there is no intermediate tolling period, at 6:30 a.m. the toll goes up from 19 to 45 NOK and goes down to 19 again at 9.00 a.m.

19 NOK = € 2.00
45 NOK = € 4.75

Tolling is inbound only. 

http://www.bomringenbergen.no/2016/...nfores-tidsdifferensierte-bompenger-i-bergen/

NRK reports that the higher charge will likely have little effect on traffic: http://www.nrk.no/hordaland/koprising_-19-av-20-bilister-vil-kjore-som-for-1.12780354


----------



## Ingenioren

Traffic today compared to last monday:

Tid Mandag 25. januar Mandag 1. februar	Differanse
0600-0615 995 1262 +26,83%
0615-0630 1699 2598 +52,91%
0630-0645 2677 2056 -23%
0645-0700 3116 2517 -19,22%
0700-0715 3061 2773 -9,41%

Some cars waiting by the tollpoint few minutes untill 09:00:









http://www.nrk.no/hordaland/her-venter-bilistene-utenfor-bomringen-1.12781235


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

Trondheim has had variable rates for years. In a few weeks the few that bother will mostly wait at home instead.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

If I understand correctly, the city of Oslo wants to ban diesel cars from municipal roads in the winter, effective immediately. According to the girl in charge, there are acute health problems. Is air quality really that bad? They make it sound like it is like in Mexico City or Tehran... How are they going to enforce this?

http://www.nrk.no/ostlandssendingen/det-blir-dieselforbud-pa-kommunale-veier-i-vinter-1.12786016


----------



## devo

"The girl in charge" (...) 

This ban will only be effective on days with extreme pollution.
They will give the police and the road authority the task to enforce this, but the most effective measure will be ban all municipal road-side parking.
And yes, it really is extremely bad. Because of the low temperature, pollution collects in the so-called Oslo bowl and doesn't blow away. To put it simply.


----------



## Gsus

I`m not exactly an expert when it comes to particle-chemistry, but I`m asking myself whenever I hear a "researchers" make a statement in the papers saying it`s life-threatening to walk outside now (have read that a couple of times this winter). Is the air in cities like Oslo and Bergen more polluted than 30-40 years back? Yes, the traffic was less, but the vehicles then consumed more gas and emissions were released directly from the engine, the main road-network also consisted much more of streets and low-capasity roads those days. Also, there were a lot more heating by oil and wood those days in addition to industry. 

I know it`s political uncorrect to talk agaings these things, but I`m getting the feeling that some people wants to prove a point, and a lot of people swallow what they`re saying uncritical. But then again, does always "political correct" walk hand in hand with common sense? Having said that, I`m all for making the quality of the air and environment better, but things take time. I`m not supporting turning the everyday of a lot of people on the head overnight without having good alternatives. "The girl i charge" is in my opinion thinking that everything is just as easy as living on Grünerløkka everywhere, and tries to make the world turn after that.

One can also ask themselves; is the Økern intersection and the Hjortneskaia (E18 and the Kiel-ferry on idling at the port half the day) and Danmarks plan the right places to put up the gear to measure pollution?


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

or Elgeseter gate in Trondheim.








Right next to the most congested streets of Norway. Even then Norwegian cities are not exactly the worst in the world 








This particular graph on particles in air was showing Oslo compared to typical holiday cities for Norwegians ( so no Persian capital, and Cairo would be off the list today ..). Personally I am convinced that generally the biggest source of pollution in Norwegian residential areas are from wood stoves and oil fired heaters, but almost always the level of pollution is below the EU limit except those few stations right next to heavily trafficated roads. Of course some cold days can be significantly worse than average, but on such days people with respiratory problems tend and should stay mostly inside anyway. (Personally I mostly move within the city by bike, so a ban would not affect me much)


----------



## Suburbanist

The issue is that the understanding of the effects of pollutants in the body has changed a lot. Today, we speak of discernible impact on life expectancy (statistically significantly different than zero) of certain form of air (or water, for that matter) pollution. 

In the past, society just accepted that some years taken off overall life expectancy was entirely accepted as a price of an industrialized society. The links between certain forms of pollution (such as unfiltered coal ash that plagued European cities all over the place well into the 1950s) and some life-ending or crippling chronic diseases has been known since the 1920s in some cases, but people accepted that as a fact of life. 

That has obviously change and I can't say it is for the worse!

Moreover, there is a secondary effect: people know live substantially longer than before. This means certain forms of pollution have 2 extra decades to build up in the body and shorten life, especially carcinogenic agents. 

I know many scientists have terrible layman communication skills, but when a biohazard researcher, a serious one not keen on pushing some agenda or other, says something is a threat to life, what he or she means is that exposure to a given form substance at a certain level has the potential to produce, over the course of a lifetime, an impact on life expectancy different than zero (again, using the probabilistic definition with some confidence interval).

Certain pollutants are still tolerated because there is no feasible way to completely eliminate them (ozone pollution for instance), but others are on the way out.

If anything, I think this might give a necessary push to "electrify" the European car fleet sooner rather than later. As it often happens, broad technological shifts don't happen linearly, but on an S-shaped form. The marginal costs of building electrical cars has been plummeting fast, the only reason they are still expensive is because they are geared towards the high-end of the market and there is not much widespread charging infrastructure - yet. 

Once the charging infrastructure problem is tackled, I'm sure cheap electrical cars will come around and, once the effects on pollution are known, there will be political pressure to bring them fast (I'm thinking of something like a total ban on sale of new non-electrical cars as soon as 2022-24 and phasing out gas-powered vehicles completely by 2040, sooner in urban areas).


----------



## metasmurf

That EU limit must be really strict, since the old E4 stretch through my hometown Umeå (~79 000 inhabitants) and E4 in Örnsköldsvik (~29 000 inhabitants) are over the limit.


----------



## Tenjac

54°26′S 3°24′E;130477638 said:


> This particular graph on particles in air was showing Oslo compared to typical holiday cities for Norwegians ( so no Persian capital, and Cairo would be off the list today ..). Personally I am convinced that generally the biggest source of pollution in Norwegian residential areas are from wood stoves and oil fired heaters, but almost always the level of pollution is below the EU limit except those few stations right next to heavily trafficated roads. Of course some cold days can be significantly worse than average, but on such days people with respiratory problems tend and should stay mostly inside anyway. (Personally I mostly move within the city by bike, so a ban would not affect me much)


In order to make some conclusions, you need to have a network of stations - some of them have to be in highly polluted areas (so called "urban stations") while some of them have to be in pressumably unpolluted areas (so called "background stations" or "rural stations"). PM10 are only one of the particles that are commonly monitored the other being PM2.5. PM 2.5 are far more dangerous. (Names PM 10 and PM 2.5 mean that particles are larger than 10 or 2.5 micrometres.)

There are also other factors like CO, CO2, SO2, NOx, ozone (very bad in troposphere), various VOCs etc. and natural factors like wind speed and direction, sunshine, thunderstorms, fires...


----------



## ChrisZwolle

The EU limits for PM10 (particles) and NO2 (nitrogen dioxides) are 40 µg/m³ by the way. Oslo is at half that level according to that graph.


----------



## Stafangr

Norwegian cities aren't usually that polluted, but during winter inversion can be a large problem. Most people can handle it in their day to day life, but for old people and asthmatics it's a real problem and lowers their quality of life.

Norway has been criticized by ESA (the EFTA Surveillance Authority) for breaching EEA legislation related to air quality.


Smog over Bergen looks like this:


----------



## suburbicide

ChrisZwolle said:


> The EU limits for PM10 (particles) and NO2 (nitrogen dioxides) are 40 µg/m³ by the way. Oslo is at half that level according to that graph.


The worst problem is NO2, and that's above 40 µg/m³ as a yearly average, and many times higher than that on the worst winter days. The problem has gotten worse in recent years due to the increase in diesel cars.

Some historical data can be found here (in Norwegian):

http://www.luftkvalitet.info/Libraries/Rapporter/oslo_ny.sflb.ashx



Stafangr said:


> Norway has been criticized by ESA (the EFTA Surveillance Authority) for breaching EEA legislation related to air quality.


Norway was actually _convicted_ in the EFTA court for exceeding the limits and not doing anything about it.

The main problem in my view is that the national government has been sitting on their hands for many years. Diesel cars still have more favorable taxes than petrol cars, and the diesel tax is significantly lower than the petrol tax. 

This ban will be very difficult to enforce, but diesel drivers get no sympathy from me. The writing has been on the wall with regards to diesel for a number of years. It should not come as a surprise to anyone.


----------



## Rob73

suburbicide said:


> This ban will be very difficult to enforce, but diesel drivers get no sympathy from me. The writing has been on the wall with regards to diesel for a number of years. It should not come as a surprise to anyone.


The govt has only recently come out against diesel vehicles (2012?) after encouraging people to buy them for decades, you can't expoect peoples buying habbits to change overneight, especially when diesel is still cheaper at the pump and you can drive a lot further on 1 litre of diesel than you can on 1 litre of petrol.

I own a 2013 A6 2.0TDi and a 2014 A1 1.4 FSi, the A6 is significantly more efficient then the A1, despite being hundreds of KG's heaver, 55hp more powerfull and automatic.


----------



## Ingenioren

*E6 Oppegård*



VS:



Should have done this long time ago!  Standard motorway + little bit of paint - voila!


----------



## ChrisZwolle

^^ These Google+ (?) photos don't show to me.


----------



## cinxxx

^^You have to get the links from quoting the post and watch them in your browser...

In the meantime, I finished the plan of my Norway trip and booked all flights and the car.


Evening flight Munich-Copenhagen
Copenhagen
Copenhagen
Morning flight to Bergen + Bergen
Bergen
Get car - Bergen-Eidfjord-Voringfossen-Flam (maybe also train ride or Borgund)
Flam-Fossbergom-Geiranger (maybe also train ride or Borgund)
Geiranger-Trollstigen-Alesund
Alesund-Atlantic Road-Trondheim - drop off car
Trondheim
Noon flight Trondheim-Tromso
Tromso + Evening flight Tromso-Oslo
Oslo
Oslo
Noon Flight Oslo-Stockholm
Stockholm
Afternoon Flight Stockholm-Munich


----------



## Ingenioren

Ok, i didn't know that, they are now in photobucket instead.


----------



## IceCheese

What have they done, exactly? Who can use the third lane?


----------



## suburbicide

IceCheese said:


> What have they done, exactly? Who can use the third lane?


It's a temporary bus lane due to the planned rehab of the Bryn tunnel. Lanes are narrower, especially the left lane, so the speed limit is lowered to 80 km/h.


----------



## Ingenioren

Is it now? Was 90 when I took the photo. AFAIK there should be 3rd lane / shoulder running permanently since this stretch is very congested in the morning. But only for buses? I think there are few buses on this road. 2+ lane perhaps....


----------



## suburbicide

Ingenioren said:


> Is it now? Was 90 when I took the photo. AFAIK there should be 3rd lane / shoulder running permanently since this stretch is very congested in the morning. But only for buses? I think there are few buses on this road. 2+ lane perhaps....


Here's a link to the official info:

http://www.vegvesen.no/vegprosjekte...dige-kollektivfelt-på-e6-nord-og-syd-for-oslo


----------



## IceCheese

Yes, which busses uses that stretch? Siggerud/Enebakk + Flybussexpressen?


----------



## Bjørne

http://www.vegvesen.no/vegprosjekter/tunneleroslo/nyhetsarkiv/statens-vegvesen-etablerer-midlertidige-innfartsparkeringer

There are now 400 new parking spaces for commuters at Tusenfryd, with new bus lines going between Tusenfryd and Oslo during rush hour, plus a rush hour line from Vestby (590E).


----------



## Galro

A new bridge have collapsed during construction of the new e6 in Sjoa:








http://www.nrk.no/ho/ny-e6-bru-har-kollapsa-1.12808386


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Wow, that seems bad. Was the logging truck overloaded, or could it have been a construction error? As I read it on NRK, the bridge was built specifically to serve a forest (i.e. logging), so you'd think it was designed to carry logging trucks.

_Brua skal ha vært kjørbar ei lita stund. Den fører til en privat adkomstvei som går til dyrka mark og skogsområder, forklarer Moshagen._


----------



## Galro

They don't know the cause yet, but I doubt the truck was overloaded. It seems to be just half-full with logs and it don't even have a trailer. Surely the bridge must have been designed to be carry more than that? 

The construction of the bridge was just finished in September 2015.


----------



## devo

I'm thinking design error. (EDIT: Or manufacturing error.) This has snapped like a match. Here are the drawings to contemplate for yourself:


----------



## MichiH

Agent 006 said:


> *E6 Melhus - Tiller*
> 
> Finally the contract for building 8,1 km motorway (E6 Sentervegen - Jaktøyen) is announced. The winner will be chosen after 30. october, and *construction starts in winter*. The stretch is still scheduled for completion in 2018. Sadly, it's seems like they have removed the third lane in northbound direction between Klett and Sandmoen to save some money. That means that trucks won't get a climbing lane here. But I guess this lane could be added later.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.vegvesen.no/Om+Statens+vegvesen/Presse/Siste+nyheter/Vis?key=985512


When are construction works expected to begin?


----------



## Suburbanist

Is it true that Norway is going to phase out the widely successful tax-exemption programs for electric cars? hno:

Electric cars are great and there should be a 15/20-year period of tax exemptions to remove as many traditional fuel cars from the fleet, as it is normally replaced, as possible!


----------



## Agent 006

MichiH said:


> When are construction works expected to begin?


Preparatory works have started. Main works starts around easter this year, and the stretch is scheduled to open in spring 2019. The project is now called E6 Trondheim-Melhus, and has two webpages; 

https://miljopakken.no/prosjekter/e6-trondheim-melhus
http://www.vegvesen.no/Europaveg/e6trondheim


----------



## Ingenioren

Suburbanist said:


> Is it true that Norway is going to phase out the widely successful tax-exemption programs for electric cars? hno:


It is possible we will see some reduced benefits for ev's next year. Green taxes or subsidies are not popular, it doesn't help that there are 10.000 Teslas on the roads(many of them have extra equipment worth the cost of a Leaf) - so people find this unfair.


----------



## MattiG

Ingenioren said:


> It is possible we will see some reduced benefits for ev's next year. Green taxes or subsidies are not popular, it doesn't help that there are 10.000 Teslas on the roads(many of them have extra equipment worth the cost of a Leaf) - so people find this unfair.


Typically, subsidies end at the day the subsidized entity turns too popular, and dangers the tax cash flow.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

A while back there was a story in the Wall Street Journal about electric car tax incentives in Norway. An example mentioned was the Finnøy Tunnel near Stavanger. Electric cars are exempt from tolls, but the share of EVs in that tunnel has risen so much that it endangers the financial viability of the toll tunnel.


----------



## Rob73

Suburbanist said:


> Is it true that Norway is going to phase out the widely successful tax-exemption programs for electric cars? hno:
> 
> Electric cars are great and there should be a 15/20-year period of tax exemptions to remove as many traditional fuel cars from the fleet, as it is normally replaced, as possible!


I hope so, owners of electric cars use the sme roads, bridges and tunnels as the rest of us use, they should not be exempt from paying for them.


----------



## Rob73

ChrisZwolle said:


> A while back there was a story in the Wall Street Journal about electric car tax incentives in Norway. An example mentioned was the Finnøy Tunnel near Stavanger. Electric cars are exempt from tolls, but the share of EVs in that tunnel has risen so much that it endangers the financial viability of the toll tunnel.


It's already happened on the Averøy to Kristiansund Atlantic Harbour Tunnel, most people living on Averøy who commute drive electric cars. My brother in law lives there, in his neighbourhood just about everyone has an electric car. The stuipd issue with this tunnel is the car and driver are free but you pay for the passangers.


----------



## Suburbanist

I'm not saying electric cars should't pay tolls or parking fees, but they should be exempt of additional taxes/levies cars normally pay (like pollution-based taxes or special duty fees).


----------



## MattiG

Suburbanist said:


> I'm not saying electric cars should't pay tolls or parking fees, but they should be exempt of additional taxes/levies cars normally pay (like pollution-based taxes or special duty fees).


Why?

It is good to understand that environmental taxes are pure bluff. The sole purpose of taxes is to collect money. Most of the taxes are collected where it is easiest. Putting label such as "pollution tax" is psychology: People tend to not resist taxes which they to believe to save the world.

Environmental taxes are like a squirrel: The cute animal is basically a rat surviving due to a successful marketing campaign.


----------



## belerophon

Suburbanist said:


> I'm not saying electric cars should't pay tolls or parking fees, but they should be exempt of additional taxes/levies cars normally pay (like pollution-based taxes or special duty fees).


To be honest, i think electric car are stupid right now.

They don't pollute the environment, yes, but this is often done, where the electricity is produced. Leaving Norways heavily water-based electricity production behind, it does not save any CO² or anything. Why? because an power plant is truly more effective as your little oven at home. But in electricity production around 2/3 of primary energy are lost in production and transmission. 

Why are subsidies sometimes a good idea? Because some techniques need a given share in the market to work. So the product might or might not reach a given break-even-point. This could be seen in the economics of the producing company, or for the whole economy of a given region. The subsidies might help creating a breakthrough, which would otherwise never or much later occur.

If this new techniques do work cannot calculated before, just guessed. So it might happen, that this breakthrough never happens. Nuclear energy did never work without subsidies. It was a dream of scientists in the sixties. But what happened? politics decided to pay for upfront cost, right now they pay much for security and if possible they will pay for the leftovers for decades, centuries or äons, if mankind exists so long. It never worked, except for companies. I often hear conspiracys that in fact nuclear is so good, because yuo have so much energy in so little maasses that its like a miracle. Well the fact is, that you need to dig tons and tons of rock to get those grams of usable stuff, afterwards wou enrich it with another high need of energy. I live in saxony, ore mountains. Much of the Uranium for russian weapons was dup up here. But they destroyed the whole region with that, and did not pay. Nowadys this destruction is done in kasachstan, where people do not complain maybe. 

With electric cars, we are dependent on good storage, which does not exist. These cars have a much lower range, are much more expensive and rely on a huge use of scarce metals, which are used up for no benefit and are which makes things worse often in hands of our chinese "friends".


In fact if pure uranium would lie on the street somewhere, maybe nuclear would be a good idea (not mentioning the risks). I fact, if electricity would be floating around like water, electric cars would be a good idea, but thats not the cause. Maybe that might change to the better, future nobody knows. But right now electric cars are not ready for competition. Just engineers playground, not usable for the real world. 

“[…] reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled.” Richard Feynman (Report on the Challenger disaster)


----------



## Suburbanist

belerophon said:


> To be honest, i think electric car are stupid right now.
> 
> They don't pollute the environment, yes, but this is often done, where the electricity is produced. Leaving Norways heavily water-based electricity production behind, it does not save any CO² or anything. *Why? because an power plant is truly more effective as your little oven at home. But in electricity production around 2/3 of primary energy are lost in production and transmission*.


I'm afraid to say you are completely wrong about that!

Bulk transmission at high tension are minimal, less than 1% for a grid like Norway's.

Bulk generation at power plants is far more effective than internal combustion engines. The best ICEs can't recover 38% of total energy. Water turbines can recoup up to 90% of kinetic energy.


----------



## belerophon

Suburbanist said:


> I'm afraid to say you are completely wrong about that!
> 
> Bulk transmission at high tension are minimal, less than 1% for a grid like Norway's.
> 
> Bulk generation at power plants is far more effective than internal combustion engines. The best ICEs can't recover 38% of total energy. Water turbines can recoup up to 90% of kinetic energy.


Its always funny if someone argues in a field he doe not understand. But please explain your nex insights, as an engineer i am very interested. :bash:


----------



## Ingenioren

Electric cars use on average 0.2kwh per km. Meanwhile an average fossil fuel car uses 0.6.


----------



## TrentSteele

It is shortsighted to say that because electricity _may_ be produces from fossil fuels, electric transportation is not a good idea.

1. A combined cycle gas turbine power plant burning fossil fuels does so with greater than 60% efficiency. The average ICE has an average efficiency of around 20%. An electric motor is more than 90% efficient. Transmission losses are close to negligible. Thus, even if the electricity comes from burning fossil fuels, the end to end efficiency is much greater resulting in less consumption and emissions.

2. Much of the electricity does not come from fossil fuels and is emission neutral. Renewable energy is rapidly replacing other forms of electricity generation and will soon be dominant. Electric cars are in this way future proof.

Renewable energy and battery technology has reached a tipping point, and there is no stopping it now. The price of solar panels, batteries and related technologies will plummet, and no alternative will come close to being able to compete, least of all fossil fuels that are becoming a scarce resource. In 10-20 years, if you live in a house in a reasonably sunny area, there is a good chance your house and car will be powered entirely by _free_ energy beaming down from above. When the price of solar panels and batteries are a tenth of what they are now and their efficiencies are greatly improved, you'd be an idiot _not_ to do this. No more electricity bills and no more filling up the tank at the petrol station.

Renewable energy and electric transportation are not going to win because they are better for the planet, they will win because they are just better.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

Electric engines are very efficient, but also conversion losses in the batteries have to be taken into account, which, as far as I know, leaves the net efficiency (electric grid to mechanical work) to the order of 60 %. The net efficiency when using electric power from a thermal power plant is hence about the same as a conventional petrol or diesel car. For a hydrogen car the total net efficiency is significantly lower, mainly due the low efficiency of the fuel cells. 

There are however still very good reasons to switch to electric. In the years ahead the conversion to a climate neutral energy system will have to accelerate, and there is no way fossil cars can be part of that system, whereas all electric power plants in the future will have to be emission free. Thermal power plants probably still will be a major part of this system (resources are plentiful despite what is claimed above, and huge investments have been made) , but only in combination with CCS. Free energy we will never have. 

Another big reason to switch to electric is of course the positive effect on the air quality of our cities.


----------



## MattiG

54°26′S 3°24′E;131400739 said:


> Electric engines are very efficient, but also conversion losses in the batteries have to be taken into account, which, as far as I know, leaves the net efficiency (electric grid to mechanical work) to the order of 60 %. The net efficiency when using electric power from a thermal power plant is hence about the same as a conventional petrol or diesel car. For a hydrogen car the total net efficiency is significantly lower, mainly due the low efficiency of the fuel cells.
> 
> There are however still very good reasons to switch to electric. In the years ahead the conversion to a climate neutral energy system will have to accelerate, and there is no way fossil cars can be part of that system, whereas all electric power plants in the future will have to be emission free. Thermal power plants probably still will be a major part of this system (resources are plentiful despite what is claimed above, and huge investments have been made) , but only in combination with CCS. Free energy we will never have.
> 
> Another big reason to switch to electric is of course the positive effect on the air quality of our cities.


One aspect to take into calculations is air-conditioning. It effectively decreases the true power efficiency, because a major part of the battery capacity is used to other purposes than moving the car.

Heating is the other side of the coin. In the cold areas, the heat typically comes for free because of the low efficiency of a gasoline-driven combustion engine: the waste heat is used for heating the cabin. According to tests on electric passenger cars, about half of the energy goes to heating, thus effectively shortening the range of the vehicle to a half. A reasonable solution might be a hybrid car equipped with a fuel-burning heater: It is a more effective way to make heat than using an combustion engine.

Helsinki Regional Transport has ordered 12 fast-charging full-size electric buses. They are equipped with a heat pump. There is a charging station at the endpoints of the line, and the charging time is 1.5-3 minutes only:

http://www.vttresearch.com/media/ne...charging-electric-buses-to-enter-into-service


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

I agree with regards to heating (and other issues at cold temperatures). Air con of course affects the range and efficiency of an electric car as much (or as little) as for a fossil car.


----------



## TrentSteele

54°26′S 3°24′E;131400739 said:


> Electric engines are very efficient, but also conversion losses in the batteries have to be taken into account, which, as far as I know, leaves the net efficiency (electric grid to mechanical work) to the order of 60 %. The net efficiency when using electric power from a thermal power plant is hence about the same as a conventional petrol or diesel car.


How do you come to that, seeing as one is ~30% and one is ~60%?


----------



## havaska

54°26′S 3°24′E;131413478 said:


> I agree with regards to heating (and other issues at cold temperatures). Air con of course affects the range and efficiency of an electric car as much (or as little) as for a fossil car.


Regarding the heat issue, this is something that has also been brought up with incandescent lightbulbs vs energy saving.

Basically, the theory is that in Northern Europe where it's colder, when we use incandescent bulbs the heat they give off indirectly heats our homes and workplaces and thus is more energy efficient then using an energy bulb and putting more strain on the heating systems for the building.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

*Julsund Bridge + Romsdalsfjord Tunnel*

The plans for Møreaksen have been released. This E39 project consists of a very large suspension bridge and a very long twin-tube motorway tunnel.

The Julsund Bridge is a very large suspension bridge, with a main span of 1625 meters (increased from 1600 m in earlier plans) making it 1 meter longer than the Great Belt Bridge in Denmark.

The Romsdalsfjord Tunnel, also known as the Tautra Tunnel in planning stages is a 15.500 meter long twin-tube tunnel. The tunnel profile is T10.5, increased from T9.5 in earlier plans.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

*Bjarkøy Connection*

The deepest point of the Bjarkøy Connection has been reached on 26 May. The 3250 meter long tunnel is located 129 meters below sea level. It will open to traffic in late 2017. It is located north of Harstad in northern Norway.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Two modernized / new segments of E39 in Gaular municipality open to traffic on 27 June. It bypasses the village of Sande and improves safety and traffic speed from Sognefjord to Førde.


----------



## berlinwroclaw

Some years ago was in Norway, but Bergen was to far for me. There is no offical policy to build a motorway between Oslo and Bergen the two biggest cities in Norway. The only possible option is a motorway Oslo-Odda-Jondal-Bergen, because the population density is much higher than other options. Traveling will be reduced from 5 hours to 3,5 hours. The Public Roads Administration advised the government this option, however the Minister of Transport is playing a tricky game by continuous support for road Rv7 with more problems in winter and longer distance. 
It will be a scandal when the Conservative Party wants Rv7 the main road between Bergen and Oslo. This will have a benefit to the community at - 12 billion. Improved E134 Bergen-Oslo will have a benefit to the community at + 26 billion. It is also the shortest and most secure connection. Therefore also the most environment friendly option. When the Rv7 will be approved as main road between Bergen and Olso, it will be a worldwide case study of failing politics. A government not listing to the voice of the people and not sensitive for the concern of the country. In May a number of city representatives had to go to the parliament to beg for a motorway Bergen-Oslo via Jondal. Mid 2017 will be the final decision.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

I don't think you can drive Oslo - Bergen with a 110 km/h _average_ unless all the tunnels will have 110 km/h speed limits as well.


----------



## berlinwroclaw

ChrisZwolle said:


> I don't think you can drive Oslo - Bergen with a 110 km/h _average_ unless all the tunnels will have 110 km/h speed limits as well.


Speed lower speed limit in tunnels is accepted, considering the mountain area. I feel admiration for motorways such as in Italy A10 Genoa - Ventimiglia, where decision makers had the courage to build a motorway in a rocky area, and I don't feel irritation when I have to reduce speed in tunnels. However it is irritating that in rich oil county Norway there is no common sense to build a highway like E6 Oslo-Lillehammer from Oslo to Bergen.


----------



## berlinwroclaw

Hansadyret said:


> You are right E16 is the safer in the winter and thats why it's the "E" road. As a tourist or in the summer months i would rather drive Rv. 7 Hardangervidda


Why aren't you driving E134? The most popular road between Bergen and Oslo. New already approved improvements will make it also the shortest and most reliable road all seasons. 

Many improvements of Bergen-Oslo via Jondal and E134 are just realised or under way:


ChrisZwolle said:


> The Folgefonna Tunnel near Odda becomes toll free, starting 15 June. It is the third longest road tunnel in Norway at 11.1 kilometers. It opened to traffic in 2001, so the toll collection lasted for 15 years.


Ministry of Transport agreed that there will come a new set of tunnels to pass Haukeli. Bypass Kongsberg is under construction.









There are also improvements under way on E134 at Drammen to reduce the time between Bergen and Oslo.


----------



## MattiG

berlinwroclaw said:


> ...
> 
> It will be a scandal when the Conservative Party wants Rv7 the main road between Bergen and Oslo
> 
> ...[/QUOTE]
> 
> Well. There still are three main alternatives on the table with a number of options. Everyone has their pros ans cons. I would avoid such a strong language as "scandal" if the favorite one does not win.


----------



## berlinwroclaw

MattiG said:


> Well. There still are three main alternatives on the table with a number of options. Everyone has their pros ans cons. I would avoid such a strong language as "scandal" if the favorite one does not win.


Yes, you made a very good point. Suppose there are no motorways in Germany and we want to realize a motorway between Berlin and Dortmund. We have 3 options to select:

1. Berlin-Soltau-Dortmund 635 km
2. Berlin-Walsrode-Dortmund 592 km
3. Berlin-Hannover-Dortmund 494 km

Economical impact analysis shows that option 3 has the highest economical benefit for the country and also goes to more areas with a dense population.

What will be your choice?

Now we have a similar case:

We have 3 options to select:

1. Oslo-Borgund-Bergen 515 km (Rv52)
2. Oslo-Geilo-Bergen 476 km (Rv7)
3. Oslo-Odda-Bergen 380 km (E134)

Economical impact analysis shows that option 3 has the highest economical benefit for the country and also goes to more areas with a dense population.

What will be your choice?


----------



## ChrisZwolle

*E18 Asker - Oslo*

An agreement has been reached about the expansion of E18 west of Oslo. The Greens and the Olso city council accept the widening of E18 to six lanes, while other parties accept a strong increase of the congestion charge to 58 NOK (diesel) and 53 NOK (petrol), while also introducing a 10 NOK charge for electric cars.

I don't quite understand the role of the city of Oslo in this issue. Apparently they can block the expansion of 2 km E18 between Strand and Lysaker, but the entire project is located outside of Oslo.

https://www.nrk.no/ostlandssendingen/enighet-om-e18-og-oslopakke-3-1.12981322

I'm not sure what the final plans are exactly in terms of alternatives chosen, but Asker and Bærum municipality websites indicate a six-lane motorway with separate bus lanes and all of that mostly in tunnels. The project cost is 36 billion NOK / € 3.9 billion.


----------



## Mirror's Edge

^^ I had to go to the link and read if the maximum per 24h would be 58 NOK, but no it's the actual 1 time passing charge.

I have been kinda ashamed to be living next door but never been to Norway, some ppl drive from Spain to get there, slightly offended and utterly chocked of the steep charges, I am now convinced I will never gaze upon the vistas of Norway.


----------



## devo

The E 18 project is part of the "Oslopakke 3", which (among other things) consists of E 18, a new metro tunnel beneath central Oslo and a new metro line to Fornebu (where the B is).

Oslo and Akershus county are both negotiating this package since large parts of urban Oslo is located in Akershus. This is why Oslo has a say in the plans. However, they are in a minority, as there are two municipalities (Asker & Bærum) plus Akershus who wants the whole project as it is. If Oslo was in majority it could technically drop the entire road, even if it was outside the county (Oslo is a county btw., not a municipality)

So, since Oslo is waving their new-found green arms in an angry fashion, simultaneously throwing scare-stories about twelve-lane motorways and death to all bicyclists, they get to decide just how it should be outside their sand-box. Even though most of the project is all about getting E 18 under ground, building express bicycle lanes, bus lanes and local roads to minimise traffic in residential streets. No twelve lane motorway (which came up when the greens added all new lanes together, E 18, bus, residential, and so on.)

E 18 will have one, yes one extra lane, inbound. (3+3)


----------



## GuyFromMoss

devo said:


> E 18 will have one, yes one extra lane, inbound. (3+3)


No, the greens managed to change the plans, so that there will be 2 lanes inbound and 3 lanes outbound. So overall the capacity will only increase on the local road and the bus lanes.


----------



## berlinwroclaw

ChrisZwolle said:


> An agreement has been reached about the expansion of E18 west of Oslo.


That is also good news for the connection between Oslo and Bergen via E134. The E18 has a lot of congestion in the suburbs and with this extension it will be mitigated. Together with the new E134 motorway tunnel at Drammen in western direction, there will be a considerable reduction of traveling time in this area in near future.


----------



## Ingenioren

Mirror's Edge said:


> some ppl drive from Spain to get there, slightly offended and utterly chocked of the steep charges


Yes, there is no way i have to pay 50 euro to drive from say Girona to Cadiz? Right....


----------



## devo

GuyFromMoss said:


> No, the greens managed to change the plans, so that there will be 2 lanes inbound and 3 lanes outbound. So overall the capacity will only increase on the local road and the bus lanes.


Aha, I see. I guess this is only on the 2 km section? It's a mess anyway. E 18 is 3+3 through the central tunnels (Operatunnelen) and this mixture of 2 and 3 lanes will not solve any problem at all.


----------



## OAQP

Mirror's Edge said:


> ^^ I had to go to the link and read if the maximum per 24h would be 58 NOK, but no it's the actual 1 time passing charge.
> 
> I have been kinda ashamed to be living next door but never been to Norway, some ppl drive from Spain to get there, slightly offended and utterly chocked of the steep charges, I am now convinced I will never gaze upon the vistas of Norway.


I'll be surprised if a return trip from say Gothenburg to Bergen will be more than €50 if you drive the E6/E16/RV7/RV52/E16. 

Surely, this is fairly reasonable and comparable to a similar trip to Continental Europe from Gothenburg (via the Oresund and Great Belt fixed links).


----------



## ChrisZwolle

*Dolmsund Bridge*

The Dolmsund Bridge to the island of Frøya was inaugurated on 3 June. It is part of County Road 714. 

The bridge is 462 meters long, with a 190 meter main span, quite long for this type of bridge, and the deck is located 32 meters above Dolmsundet. 

It is the final project of the Hitra–Frøya Fixed Link, which also included the Hitra Tunnel (1994) and Frøya Tunnel (2000). The bridge construction took 3 years, the opening has been delayed by almost a year, it was originally planned to open in July 2015.

It will carry the 2,000 vehicles per day that used the old bridge, located a few kilometers to the west. The bridge is located 80 kilometers west of Trondheim as the crow flies. It is fairly far from the main road network, E39 is 100 kilometers away, a 90 minute drive according to Google Maps.


----------



## Mathias Olsen

ChrisZwolle said:


> The Dolmsund Bridge to the island of Frøya was inaugurated on 3 June. It is part of County Road 714.


The new bridge reduces the traveling with 6 minutes from Frøya to Hitra. It is also straighter and safer to run. 
Minor alteration: the bridge was supposed to open in summer 2015, but the work was delayed and much more expensive than expected: approximately NOK 50 million more expensive than initially estimated.


----------



## Mathias Olsen

OAQP said:


> I'll be surprised if a return trip from say Gothenburg to Bergen will be more than €50 if you drive the E6/E16/RV7/RV52/E16.


You can even do it with less when you take E6/E18/E134/E16.


----------



## Mathias Olsen

ChrisZwolle said:


> An agreement has been reached about the expansion of E18 west of Oslo.


Significant detail with this agreement was that one of the members had a delay because of the traffic jam  Despite that, the greens "sell" the agreement as a victory for environment, there will even be a reduction of the benefits of electric cars. And yes, also petrol and diesel cars have to pay more and more, until they are forbidden in Norway by law in 2025!


----------



## Gsus

GuyFromMoss said:


> No, the greens managed to change the plans, so that there will be 2 lanes inbound and 3 lanes outbound. So overall the capacity will only increase on the local road and the bus lanes.


Although I`ve not seen any drawings or models illustrating the new solution, I´m worried that only two inbound through lanes is gonna make the situation worse than it is today, as the new tunnel from Gjønnes, with expected 20 000 daily vehicles is supposed to merge into E18 at Strand. I sincerely hope the planners in this project is able to "hide" an extra inbound throug lane in a future tunnel under Høvik in the reguleringsplan, so we don`t risk a bottleneck there. Three lanes in each direction at least between the E16-intersection in Sandvika and the Ring 3-intersection near Lysaker is very much needed! Now I´m afraid that the new road from Gjønnes will block this if merged as a third lane until the Ring 3 intersection. From what I´ve understood of the plans earlier, there has been a strong focus on balancing the number of lanes to avoid bottlenecks, but it seems politics might get the last word again, and thus ruining the engineers concept.

Media fronts this as a big loss for the green party in Oslo, my opinion is that they`ve won. I think the Akershus-politicians really has made a huge mistake accepting the reductions in capacity! Now they`re gonna use billions on what might become an even worse situation when E18 also will carry traffic from upper Bærum. hno:


----------



## Mathias Olsen

Caribou Herd on the main road Rv7 through Hardangervidda National Park. Such things happens from time to time in this area. Scientific research of animals in this protected area showed that the animals try to keep distance from the Rv7 road, because their food is less attractive. See http://www.nina.no/archive/nina/PppBasePdf/rapport/2006/131.pdf A complex set of environmental measurements is needed to protect flora and fauna to higher road density.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Gsus said:


> Although I`ve not seen any drawings or models illustrating the new solution, I´m worried that only two inbound through lanes is gonna make the situation worse than it is today, as the new tunnel from Gjønnes, with expected 20 000 daily vehicles is supposed to merge into E18 at Strand. I sincerely hope the planners in this project is able to "hide" an extra inbound throug lane in a future tunnel under Høvik in the reguleringsplan, so we don`t risk a bottleneck there. Three lanes in each direction at least between the E16-intersection in Sandvika and the Ring 3-intersection near Lysaker is very much needed! Now I´m afraid that the new road from Gjønnes will block this if merged as a third lane until the Ring 3 intersection. From what I´ve understood of the plans earlier, there has been a strong focus on balancing the number of lanes to avoid bottlenecks, but it seems politics might get the last word again, and thus ruining the engineers concept.
> 
> Media fronts this as a big loss for the green party in Oslo, my opinion is that they`ve won. I think the Akershus-politicians really has made a huge mistake accepting the reductions in capacity! Now they`re gonna use billions on what might become an even worse situation when E18 also will carry traffic from upper Bærum. hno:


There will be an auxiliary lane from Bærumsdiagonalen to Ring 3, but only 2 through lanes. It appears that eastbound E18 basically drops from 3 to 2 lanes at Strand, creating an artificial bottleneck. They should've extended the 3 lanes those last 2 kilometers up to the Ring 3 interchange. 

About two-thirds of traffic on E18 continues into Oslo, a third uses Ring 3. That's a big divergention point of traffic, so it makes no sense to spend billions on a project that will create a deliberate bottleneck. I'm guessing the Greens see chronic traffic congestion as a tool to limit traffic growth. In particular because the most affected location is outside of Oslo (Bærum), and the most affected motorists are drivers from outside of Oslo.

It also seems that they want to downgrade Mosseveien (also E18) southeast of the city, in exchange for the Manglerud Tunnel. While I think the Manglerud Tunnel makes sense, I doubt if this will materially relieve Mosseveien because those are two different traffic flows.


----------



## Mathias Olsen

Gsus said:


> Media fronts this as a big loss for the green party in Oslo, my opinion is that they`ve won. I think the Akershus-politicians really has made a huge mistake accepting the reductions in capacity!


They may have made such a mistake indeed. But Green should also not overestimate itself. They are playing a tricky game. By pushing harder and harder the anti-car scenario, it may bow up all green scenarios in future. The cry for an adequate road traffic solution will be louder and louder, with as result Ring 4 or a similar alternative, bypassing Olso. New suburbs will grow with car-friendly politicians. With Ring 4 the E18 Sandvika - Lysaker section will be bypassed.


----------



## Gsus

ChrisZwolle said:


> There will be an auxiliary lane from Bærumsdiagonalen to Ring 3, but only 2 through lanes. It appears that eastbound E18 basically drops from 3 to 2 lanes at Strand, creating an artificial bottleneck. They should've extended the 3 lanes those last 2 kilometers up to the Ring 3 interchange.


That`s correct, and I hope that enough space is saved in the planning for a third through lane. The auxiliary lane should instead be connected to the Fornebu-ramp, right through lane towards Ring 3, and two left lanes furher on E18 through Lysaker. Unsure though, what solution is planned for accessing Fornebu on E18 at the current intersection, as a new link from Strand to Fornebu arena is planned, and partially built. Anyway the E18 should indisputably have three through lanes until the Ring 3-intersection.



ChrisZwolle said:


> About two-thirds of traffic on E18 continues into Oslo, a third uses Ring 3. That's a big divergention point of traffic, so it makes no sense to spend billions on a project that will create a deliberate bottleneck. I'm guessing the Greens see chronic traffic congestion as a tool to limit traffic growth. In particular because the most affected location is outside of Oslo (Bærum), and the most affected motorists are drivers from outside of Oslo.
> 
> It also seems that they want to downgrade Mosseveien (also E18) southeast of the city, in exchange for the Manglerud Tunnel. While I think the Manglerud Tunnel makes sense, I doubt if this will materially relieve Mosseveien because those are two different traffic flows.


It`s gonna be interesting to see how things will get when more detailed plans for Manglerudtunnelen comes. Since private car capacity is not to be raised, the ramps at Helsfyr is dimensioning for E6, giving the new tunnel one lane in each direction for aprox 85% of the traffic (AADT 33 000) I would really liked for an eastern bypass under Østmarka or throug Enebakk, but I don`t see that ever being built.



Mathias Olsen said:


> They may have made such a mistake indeed. But Green should also not overestimate itself. They are playing a tricky game. By pushing harder and harder the anti-car scenario, it may bow up all green scenarios in future. The cry for an adequate road traffic solution will be louder and louder, with as result Ring 4 or a similar alternative, bypassing Olso. New suburbs will grow with car-friendly politicians. With Ring 4 the E18 Sandvika - Lysaker section will be bypassed.


The proposision for Ring 4 is very good in my opinion. Local politicians could do what ever they want with all other roads in Oslo if a good ring-road system existed, I would`nt care. Sadly though, it`s never gonna happen! Closest thing we`ll ever get to a Ring 4 will be over Hønefoss-Jevnaker-Roa-Gardermoen, and will only have a very limited function as a ring road as it`s way to far out, and of the "direct" routes. But it`s really a pity that traffic that don`t really have anything with Oslo to do has to go right through it. 

I`m hoping the new toll-prices reduces some traffic, although I don`t really like the though of prices that are to high for a commom citizen on a daily basis. Luckily for me I live on the country-side and works in a small town. No tolls, no jams.... For now


----------



## Agent 006

It was SVV who proposed only to build Strand - Lysaker in first phase. And as a consequence only two lanes needs to be built/opened for traffic now. But the day the Høvik tunnel opens (6 lanes), they will most likely open the third lane. This in order to maintain lane balance, and maybe to avoid backblocking in the tunnel. The same goes for the planned widening south of the new Manglerud tunnel.


----------



## berlinwroclaw

Mathias Olsen said:


> Caribou Herd on the main road Rv7 through Hardangervidda National Park.


A little bit a laugh... trying to upgrade an east-west main road through a National Park... Poland tried some years ago in the North-East with main road S8 Białystok-Augustów. It was against the environment policy of the European Union and Poland had to skip this road. Hardangervidda National Park may be also as unique and it should be wiser to redirect traffic over E16 and E134.


----------



## Mirror's Edge

OAQP said:


> I'll be surprised if a return trip from say Gothenburg to Bergen will be more than €50 if you drive the E6/E16/RV7/RV52/E16.
> 
> Surely, this is fairly reasonable and comparable to a similar trip to Continental Europe from Gothenburg (via the Oresund and Great Belt fixed links).


Crossing great body's of water or nation borders is one thing, driving on insufficient roads out of downtown and pay 8 USD is a huge spit in the face.
Modern Feudalism have no place in Scandinavia.


----------



## berlinwroclaw

Mirror's Edge said:


> Crossing great body's of water or nation borders is one thing, driving on insufficient roads out of downtown and pay 8 USD is a huge spit in the face.
> Modern Feudalism have no place in Scandinavia.


Indeed, Norway has to learn some lessons from their neighbours Sweden and Denmark. For a foreigner like me, it feels unreasonable to pay for a road who lacks European standards. Yes, I have been in situations with narrow, snowy roads and landslides.

But I see also some hope! No matter what government or road authority, we see every year the motorway part on E6 Oslo-Trondheim (524 km) growing. Not all 2x2 motorway, some part 2+1, but at least grade separated, so a road with a motorway feeling and suitable for long distances. Finally Norway will come to motorway civilization.


----------



## Mathias Olsen

Gsus said:


> The proposision for Ring 4 is very good in my opinion. Local politicians could do what ever they want with all other roads in Oslo if a good ring-road system existed, I would`nt care. Sadly though, it`s never gonna happen! Closest thing we`ll ever get to a Ring 4 will be over Hønefoss-Jevnaker-Roa-Gardermoen, and will only have a very limited function as a ring road as it`s way to far out, and of the "direct" routes. But it`s really a pity that traffic that don`t really have anything with Oslo to do has to go right through it.


Some patience is needed now, but you may do the following things:

1. Post traffic jam maps here with a lot of jam in Oslo. People will see the need in Oslo for a ring road or other improvements.
2. Post arguments for new motorways here or on other forums.
3. Post new plans or initiatives for new motorways here or on other forums.

Don't forget to talk to your family, friends and neighbours about the traffic problems. Think big, start small and make impression. That will work!
Situation in Oslo is that by continuous investments in an already oversized metro network, Green Oslo is going too far. Today Oslo is the world's most extensive metro per resident. One failure in this metro network, such as in Brussels, may change this scenario. More important: Oslo is a hub of business companies and you need a car to do business, not only for managers. Like we have seen in so many European cities, one day there will be a change. Oslo should look at Stavanger, a city with active investments in motorways E39 Haugesund/Bergen, E39 Kristiansand, E134 Odda-Oslo. In case of too much traffic problems many companies will leave Oslo.
Statens vegvesen is aware of the Oslo traffic nightmare and also a southern Oslo bypass may help a lot.


----------



## IceCheese

Mathias Olsen said:


> Some patience is needed now, but you may do the following things:
> 
> 1. Post traffic jam maps here with a lot of jam in Oslo. People will see the need in Oslo for a ring road or other improvements.
> 2. Post arguments for new motorways here or on other forums.
> 3. Post new plans or initiatives for new motorways here or on other forums.
> 
> Don't forget to talk to your family, friends and neighbours about the traffic problems. Think big, start small and make impression. That will work!
> Situation in Oslo is that by continuous investments in an already oversized metro network, Green Oslo is going too far. Today Oslo is the world's most extensive metro per resident. One failure in this metro network, such as in Brussels, may change this scenario. More important: Oslo is a hub of business companies and you need a car to do business, not only for managers. Like we have seen in so many European cities, one day there will be a change. Oslo should look at Stavanger, a city with active investments in motorways E39 Haugesund/Bergen, E39 Kristiansand, E134 Odda-Oslo. In case of too much traffic problems many companies will leave Oslo.
> Statens vegvesen is aware of the Oslo traffic nightmare and also a southern Oslo bypass may help a lot.


I'm not sure if you're just trying to be provocative, but you make some pretty bold statements about Oslo and how stuff works. Where did you read that Oslo metro is so extensive? Is it based on population in Oslo urban area, or metropolitan area? What is your opinion on the modal split between metro, bus and tram?

Truth is, yes, Stavanger is the car capital of Norway. 59 % commute by car, compared to Oslo's 37 % (see here: http://epomm.eu/tems/result_city.phtml?city=323&map=1 and here: http://epomm.eu/tems/result_city.phtml?city=291&map=1 ; Copenhagen has 33 %). The success of Stavanger is moving all new offices to an area known as Forus, where you can expect the joy of standing lines just as bad as the capital. Actually, according to TomTom who measures the effects of traffic congestion in cities in the world, recently put extra time spent on travel during rush hour in Stavanger to 25 % (23 % now after recession) more than travel outside rush. This is identical to Oslo's 25 %, but far more than other cities in Norway of similar size (Bergen 20%, Trondheim 16%). It's also the highest of any of the medium sized cities in the Nordics (src: https://www.tomtom.com/en_gb/trafficindex/list). So no, I don't think Oslo should be more like Stavanger.

If you think Oslo are going to suffer due to traffic congestion on E18, I think you've made some miscalculations. Downtown should probably already be in a struggle then, but no: Prices for office space are just going up in the least accessible areas for cars: http://www.nenyheter.no/44446 Obviously, these people have longer timescales than just a couple of years. 100.000s of sqms of office space close to the central station are already undergoing planning or being built.
Statistics for retail shows similar trends, 6.3 % growth in sales last year: http://www.nenyheter.no/44450

I believe in a Ring 4, as in a Oslo bypass, but to me it seems more or less decided that it will follow Rv23 or Rv19 south of Oslo and Rv35 west of Oslo and E16 north of Oslo. It should relieve downtown of a lot of heavy traffic bound for other parts of the country.



Mathias Olsen said:


> . you need a car to do business.


Why? Where have you been the last decade?


----------



## berlinwroclaw

Gsus said:


> Local politicians could do what ever they want with all other roads in Oslo if a good ring-road system existed, I would`nt care.


Oslo is the Green dream city#1 in the world. In Europe, Gliwice is #1 motorway city. They even made in 2016 (!) an expressway through the oldtown *innercity*. Check it out and see how old 19th century buildings had to be destroyed for an expressway.








Olso and Gliwice are two points of the balance between Green policy and freedom or a car. In between are in following order for Norway: Stockholm, Copenhagen and Antwerpen. A local politician will loose his followers when he doesn't listen to the people. Sooner or later the extreme green dreams are over..... the same as with the complete car freedom dreams. The smart balance is in the middle.....


----------



## verreme

berlinwroclaw said:


> Oslo is the Green dream city#1 in the world. In Europe, Gliwice is #1 motorway city. They even made in 2016 (!) an expressway through the oldtown *innercity*. Check it out and see how old 19th century buildings had to be destroyed for an expressway.
> 
> Olso and Gliwice are two points of the balance between Green policy and freedom or a car. In between are in following order for Norway: Stockholm, Copenhagen and Antwerpen. A local politician will loose his followers when he doesn't listen to the people. Sooner or later the extreme green dreams are over..... the same as with the complete car freedom dreams. The smart balance is in the middle.....


This is one of the smartest points I've ever read in this forum. All other posts are square-minded arguments between one extreme and the other. I don't have anything to add to this particular matter but I felt the need to point this out.


----------



## g.spinoza

The expressway goes nowhere near Gliwice oldtown


----------



## berlinwroclaw

g.spinoza said:


> The expressway goes nowhere near Gliwice oldtown


Offtopic question here. This is about motorways in Norway, not in Poland. However, check out the following evidence (use translate Google when necessary): http://www.dziennikzachodni.pl/motofakty/a/dts-w-gliwicach-otwarta-uwaga-jedziemy-70-kmh-dlaczego-nie-mozna-szybciej,9764381/ Second opinion Google Maps (use photo view) https://www.google.nl/maps/place/Gliwice,+Polen/@50.276889,18.6702322,14.04z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x471130606c66b15f:0x9bbca89f06cbea11!8m2!3d50.2944923!4d18.6713802 In fact you don't need to check the links at all. Any reader can have a look at the buildings and draw the conclusion that it is German architecture made by Germans long before WWII.


----------



## Mathias Olsen

IceCheese said:


> Where did you read that Oslo metro is so extensive?


See Wikipedia "Oslo" under "Transport". We may check it with the following formula:
Metro density = (Length metro network) / (Number city inhabitants)
Oslo has 658 390 inhabitants and a metro network of 85 km
Oslo Metro density = 0,129
Amsterdam has 838 387 inhabitants a metro network of 42,5 km
Amsterdam Metro density = 0,0507
Now it's your turn to falsify the claim that Oslo has the highest Metro density in the world.



IceCheese said:


> Is it based on population in Oslo urban area, or metropolitan area?


None of them. Based on city administration.



IceCheese said:


> What is your opinion on the modal split between metro, bus and tram?


I am not a specialist in public city transport, but AFAIK it depends on the growth and resources of a city. 



IceCheese said:


> Stavanger is the car capital of Norway.


We agree on this statement. I want to add that is for me the City Adminstration Road Transport Governance policy that I admire. 
Last years they had much more success to get better motorways to Stavanger than Bergen: E39 North, E39 South, E134.



IceCheese said:


> If you think Oslo are going to suffer due to traffic congestion on E18, I think you've made some miscalculations.


Office price is just one KPI of business vitality in a city. Some others are e.g. investment growth, employee engagement. 



IceCheese said:


> I believe in a Ring 4, as in a Oslo bypass, but to me it seems more or less decided that it will follow Rv23


Again I agree with you on this point. I hope Ring 4 will be build and Rv23 will be improved to double capacity.



IceCheese said:


> You need a car to do business. Why?


For short distances public transport may be a help, but not for long distances because of speed, privacy, criminality, health.



IceCheese said:


> Where have you been the last decade?


In almost all countries in Northern, Central and Western Europe.


----------



## Stafangr

Mathias Olsen said:


> Oslo should look at Stavanger, a city with active investments in motorways E39 Haugesund/Bergen, E39 Kristiansand, E134 Odda-Oslo. In case of too much traffic problems many companies will leave Oslo.


The investments in those motorways are about creating better connections to neighbouring regions and other large cities in Norway, not (mainly) for commuters. Oslo has already got a great motorway network to its regional neighbours. Have you ever travelled by car between Kristiansand-Stavanger-Bergen? It's a very different experience than driving between Kristiansand-Oslo-Lillehammer.

I don't see what's the problem with an "oversized" metro network in Oslo. Isn't that a good thing? I, for one, envy Oslo its great public transport, while Stavanger and other large/medium size Norwegian cities are standing with their hat in hand begging for some public transport financing crumbs.



> For short distances public transport may be a help, but not for long distances because of speed, privacy, criminality, health.


WHAT?!


----------



## IceCheese

Mathias Olsen said:


> See Wikipedia "Oslo" under "Transport". We may check it with the following formula:
> Metro density = (Length metro network) / (Number city inhabitants)
> Oslo has 658 390 inhabitants and a metro network of 85 km
> Oslo Metro density = 0,129
> Amsterdam has 838 387 inhabitants a metro network of 42,5 km
> Amsterdam Metro density = 0,0507
> Now it's your turn to falsify the claim that Oslo has the highest Metro density in the world.
> 
> 
> None of them. Based on city administration.


Firstly, you can't base the Oslo metro only on the inhabitants of Oslo city, which is just an archaic construction for administration. 350.000 of daily ridership didn't spur from the local population alone. Mind you also, that about 1/8th of the metro network lies in Bærum municipality, meaning the metro of Oslo proper is 74.3 km (your calculation; density 0.113, including Bærum it would be 0.108)).

Secondly, you can't just make an unbased statement, find one example to verify it, and then say it's everyone else's "job" to prove you wrong. That's not how a debate works.

For the "proof", there are both cities with greater coverage than Oslo compared to it's population (Rotterdam 0.126, Bilbao 0.125, San Sebastián 0.114) , and there are cities planning a greater network (like Stockholm). There are also cities with similar or smaller networks with A LOT lower ridership (Tyne & Wear, 74.5 km network, 40 mio ridership). Oslo metro is a success, whether you like it or not.
(note that all of these numbers are based on city populations, and the comparison therefor is nonsensical)



Mathias Olsen said:


> I am not a specialist in public city transport, but AFAIK it depends on the growth and resources of a city.


Most of both the current metro network and the tram network was built by private corporations before the war.



Mathias Olsen said:


> For short distances public transport may be a help, but not for long distances because of speed, privacy, criminality, health.


I'm not criticising the construction of motorways on longer stretches between cities. E18 through Oslo is already at motorway standard with a few exceptions.


----------



## berlinwroclaw

berlinwroclaw said:


> We have 3 options to select:
> 
> 1. Oslo-Borgund-Bergen 515 km (Rv52)
> 2. Oslo-Geilo-Bergen 476 km (Rv7)
> 3. Oslo-Odda-Bergen 380 km (E134)
> 
> Economical impact analysis shows that option 3 has the highest economical benefit for the country and also goes to more areas with a dense population.


The Minister of Transport has made a choice. The choice was E134 Oslo-Odda-Bergen. Any Minister of Transport with a perspective to serve the country should have chosen this option. Also the National Road Administration selected E134 Oslo-Odda-Bergen.

So far, so good.....










But, what happened after that? Political pressure came. Conservative politicians blocked the selected choice. They want Rv7, but this option has no key arguments. Rv7 is through a unique national park in Europe, is at high altitude and therefore more snowy in winter and longer. The only argument for Rv7 comes from politicians, journalists and Bergen Chamber of Commerce, who have holiday houses in Voss, Haugastøl and Geilo. Check it out:
https://hnytt.no/2016/05/03/massive-angrep-pa-hoyremiljoet-hordaland/

Very sad that the E134 motorway Bergen-Olso as national project is under pressure because the government has allowed themselves to be pressured and persuaded by lobbyists and holiday houses owners.


----------



## berlinwroclaw

Gsus said:


> I kind of have a feeling that the "city-government" in Oslo may make driving by car so expensive that traffic may drop enough that further road-expanding will be unesesary. They have a goal in 15% (that includes commercial traffic) drop in traffic, and I`m not sure the newly decided toll-prices is gonna make that happen, which will result in even higher prices, and maybe more toll-gates. At some point, the common citizen is not gonna afford paying tolls on a daily basis


Yes. But the same happens in many other European cities. They call their inner city an "environmental zone", such as in London. You have to pay a lot to enter such an "environmental zone" and dirty cars are not allowed at all. IMO there is something to say for cleaner zones in living areas with many people. But in London you have the alternative to go over the M25 ring motorway, while Oslo still lacks a true ring motorway, because there are no plans to construct a full Ring 4 motorway. Because there is no alternative for public transport, people are under forced control to use metro, tram or bus. That is against the universal right of freedom, a cornerstone in democratic countries. Are people in Oslo happy with that? Some research is needed what the people in Oslo want. I am curious to independent polls about it. 



Gsus said:


> With this I´m afraid it will make Oslo a "looser-city", with the flexibility in driving a car vanishing. In many contexts it`s gonna make Oslo unattractive for businesses compared to Copenhagen, Gothenburg and Stockholm, cities that put money on more than one card (read public transportation). There is a big psychological effect in not being able to use a car in many contexts. This determines a lot in where businesses and shops will locate. If anything like this should happen, I hope someone sees the warning signs! I really hope it`s just me who`s pessimistic


I can agree with your pessimism. But there will come a turning point. Politicians in Oslo have to learn a lot how to deal with big city transport problems and how to create a vital city. Oslo is still booming and will grow with 2 million people next 25 years. But this makes the politicians in Oslo too optimistic about the future. It is good that within 25 year the Norwegian oil stops, so it will be business as usual again, that means Green dreams will be downsized. The heterogeneous group of people in Oslo will make the business vitality weaker compared to other cities, like Stavanger. That is where the rubber will hit the road in Oslo. In the end it will be allright with the Oslo transport network, Oslo will follow other cities like Stockholm or Copenhagen, but it won't go without pain...


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

Mathias Olsen said:


> Just take your car and drive to E6 motorway to Lillehammer (I am sure you will like that road)


You can be sure that Chris planned this trip in detail long ago. However if you claim that the road to Lillehammer is motorway he will not be impressed at all, as it's far from being one. 

Speaking of which, there has been a lot of discussion here regarding the planned motorway Oslo - Bergen. I maybe missed something, but afaik there exist no such plans except in the rather fictous "motorway plan" in the national transport plan. That "motorway plan" is fictous because it in reality is a study and not a plan. I think it's largest bummer is to place the Trondheim - Oslo route along Gudbrandsdalen instead of Østerdalen, which would be a cheaper and much faster alternative. 

See eg http://www.bedrevei.no/abv-veikart/ for a better solution :


----------



## ChrisZwolle

The E6 motorway ends at the Rv. 3 turnoff, which is even south of Hamar. North of there it's mostly 80 km/h, and grade-separated until past Lillehammer, except for one roundabout after the bridge across Mjøsa where E6 meets Rv. 4. 

I noticed traffic was quite busy until Hamar, north of there is less intense traffic, but it would be better with 100 km/h and more passing lanes. There are two or three short 2x2 stretches where you can pass vehicles, but it's limited to 80 km/h.


----------



## ElviS77

54°26′S 3°24′E;133359006 said:


> I maybe missed something, but afaik there exist no such plans except in the rather fictous "motorway plan" in the national transport plan. That "motorway plan" is fictous because it in reality is a study and not a plan.


True. But is that really a problem? In my book, not so much, as there isn't traffic meriting a cross-mountain motorway between Oslo and Bergen (I do, however, believe we will see four+ lanes Oslo-Kristiansand-Stavanger-Bergen in the not too distant future...). It is far more important that we get our priorities straight once and for all - we need a decent and proper Oslo-Bergen highway, preferably across Haukeli. It's the busiest link, it's the shortest, it is useful for the Haugesund and even Stavanger region. I believe that the Haukeli+Bergen thing will eventually happen, but it'll take time...

At the same time, we need a proper road that links Sogn og Fjordane and northern Hordaland to Oslo and Bergen, and that's the real predicament as there are three possible options (yes, I do include Valdres, because I know how Norwegian politics work...). This might even mess up the Haukeli link as both projects are very expensive and, to some extent, in direct competition... However, this was the one thing I seriously believed the current road-friendly administration would sort out, but at the moment, I'm not very hopeful.

When it comes to Oslo, I don't see any of the fanciful ring road projects coming to fruition. Partly because it's politically impossible, but mostly because most of them are not needed. Oslo isn't Paris, London or even Copenhagen. What we do need is a radically changed public transport system (metro and railroads) plus a reasonable bypass road system with a sensible solution for the current E18, E6, and Ring 3. A moderate capacity increase which also opens up the city to the sea is welcome. It might happen, but I'm not holding my breath...

Northwards? Well, I foresee a reasonable improvement of both E6 and rv 3, but not much motorway north of Lillehammer/Elverum or south of Støren. It's simply too much money for not all that much traffic. I hope, though, that both links will be developed into divided 1+1/2+1 roads - rv 3 doesn't even require that much realignment and can be done on the cheap. Do I believe it will happen? Not really, and that's a shame...


----------



## Mathias Olsen

ElviS77 said:


> It is far more important that we get our priorities straight once and for all - we need a decent and proper Oslo-Bergen highway, preferably across Haukeli. It's the busiest link, it's the shortest, it is useful for the Haugesund and even Stavanger region. I believe that the Haukeli+Bergen thing will eventually happen, but it'll take time...


True. There is a need for charismatic political leaders with social network to get the things done. Also platform action groups for E134 like Vegforum Øst-Vest are useful and even this SSC forum can be a help. Many people in the west are not aware about the benefits of long distance car driving. 
First priority should be two snow-free Haukeli tunnels. There is some resistance for this adequate solution of the Haukeli pass, it costs 14 billion, the government still has no approval for this plan. 
http://www.vest24.no/nyheter/samfer...-blir-neppe-vintersikker-likevel/s/5-82-37865










Of the two Haukeli tunnels, the western tunnel (Røldal) is already approved. The battle now concentrates on the eastern tunnel (Haukeli) tunnel. Government and Road Administration want 3 smaller tunnels, costs 7 billion.










Second priority is Bergen-Odda via Jondal bridge. Without this connection, the platform and trigger to invest in the two expensive snow-free Haukeli tunnels will be mitigated, so we may get again a solution with shortcomings. 
With Bergen-Odda the foundation to construct a 2x2 E134 motorway is ensured, because it will attract all traffic from Stavanger till north of Bergen: the superior motorway that even will reduce air traffic, in case speed limit will reach European defacto standard 130 km/h.

Highway: maybe not good enough. Norway will need for export and tourist purposes a *motorway*, can be 1x2 for the time being in tunnels and some other expensive sections, but a safe short traveling time is essential for the economy of Norway. There is hope for that, because actual plans show that there is at least reservation for such a 2x2 motorway.


----------



## berlinwroclaw

ElviS77 said:


> ... that we get our priorities straight once and for all - we need a decent and proper Oslo-Bergen highway...


To get the priorities right, it should reflect also here on this forum. Unfortunately what can be seen here are too much exotic projects far from E134 Bergen-Oslo. Silent approval of the existing local policy situation. At least once a week there should be an update about the E134 Bergen-Oslo. There are some action group websites, publishing 2x or 3x a month an article, there are online newspaper forums from Bergen, Haugesund, Stavanger, etc. Together more than enough to provide a weekly update report. Remember: deadline is next summer. Then will be decided. Will give a good feeling inside to work for the sake of Norway, true or not true?


----------



## berlinwroclaw

54°26′S 3°24′E;133359006 said:


> ... regarding the planned motorway Oslo - Bergen. I maybe missed something, but afaik there exist no such plans except in the rather fictous "motorway plan" in the national transport plan. That "motorway plan" is fictous because it in reality is a study and not a plan.


There is no formal plan for E134 motorway Bergen-Oslo. That is true. But when we have a look at existing projects of road E134, e.g. at Drammen and Kongsberg we will see 2x2 motorway sections with tunnels and interchanges. 
Is it really wishful thinking that there may be an informal plan for E134 motorway Bergen-Oslo, in the heads of the road planners? In many countries (e.g. Poland) it is quite normal first to start with bypasses of cities and to complete the motorway later. You know that motorway construction in Norway is sensitive business. Showing plans causes too many local political problems. The motorway from Bergen to Oslo will come or in upcoming national plan or later, it cannot be stopped. The road planners know about it.


----------



## ElviS77

berlinwroclaw said:


> The motorway from Bergen to Oslo will come or in upcoming national plan or later, it cannot be stopped. The road planners know about it.


To put it simple, it won't happen. There will be motorway sections, for sure, but a full-profile motorway through the mountains is not even remotely realistic. It is a) unnecessary, as the AADT is low to moderate b) going to have a massive environmental impact c) extremely expensive and d) impossible, politically speaking. What we can hope for, though, is a plan which deals with the Oslo-Bergen link as a whole, instead of just individual shorter sections. If we also can rid ourselves of bickering between regions and counties, and within most political parties and the bureaucracy, it would be an important step forward. Still not holding my breath, though...


----------



## ChrisZwolle

I've driven both Rv. 7 and E16 between Oslo and Bergen. One thing you'll notice is the very light traffic once you're more than 50 km from Oslo or Bergen. Across Hardangervidda you'll encounter very light traffic and very few trucks, compared to two-lane roads in Central Europe. Filefjell is like that as well.

A full motorway is unnecessary, but the Oslo - Bergen route would benefit from higher speed limits up to 90-100 km/h and frequent passing lanes and a divider in the median.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

I drove Kvivsvegen (E39) to Volda today. It was the only road in this area where I could drive 80 km/h with the cruise control engaged for an extended period of time. Many other roads are curvy, narrow and/or have a lot of 60-70 limits. I can see that Kvivsvegen is a huge improvement. 

I also drove through the Eiksund Tunnel, which goes 287 meters below sea level. Man that is steep, I had it in 2nd gear and the car still went over 80 km/h if I didn't brake. There is a section control in the tunnel.


----------



## sotonsi

ChrisZwolle said:


> A full motorway is unnecessary, but the Oslo - Bergen route would benefit from higher speed limits up to 90-100 km/h and frequent passing lanes and a divider in the median.


And going via the shorter route via Odda, surely?


----------



## Mathias Olsen

ChrisZwolle said:


> I've driven both Rv. 7 and E16 between Oslo and Bergen. One thing you'll notice is the very light traffic once you're more than 50 km from Oslo or Bergen. Across Hardangervidda you'll encounter very light traffic and very few trucks, compared to two-lane roads in Central Europe. Filefjell is like that as well.


Nice you are going to Bergen. When you have no sponsor, I think you should have. 
Your impression about the traffic is excellent confirmed in the statistics. The number of cars running the entire route Oslo - Bergen daily is only 550. Most are local or regional traffic. 

Statistics about Oslo-Bergen traffic (2014):
http://www.bt.no/nyheter/trafikk/Dette-er-bilistenes-forstevalg-over-fjellet-3238169.html

E16 Filefjell - 12,5%
Rv7 Hardangervidda - 14,6%
Rv52 Hemsedal – 23,6%
E134 Haukeli - 27% and growing

The Minister of Transport and the Road Administration have solid reasons to select Rv52 as secondary main road Oslo – Bergen after primary main road E134. 
But what about the Rv7 Hardanger bridge? Rv7 Hardanger bridge comes in financial problems because it has less traffic than predicted. 

https://www.nrk.no/hordaland/dropper-broen-nar-vidda-er-stengt-1.11567086 

It is likely that Rv7 will not be selected as northern road from west to east. Therefore it will no longer be prioritized holding open during the winter. It may be a serious option to retire the complete bridge to avoid high maintenance costs and a bankrupt bridge administration. Parts can be used for new bridges, such as on E134 Bergen-Odda.
The bridge has been constructed with modular parts, in the same way the bridge has been constructed, modular parts can be removed and transferred to other bridges. 










Re-use of old bridge parts is not unusual in many countries. This can be an effective example of sustainability, hype in Norway and many other Western countries. 

I am curious which road you will take to the south east. Via E39 or E134?


----------



## Mathias Olsen

ElviS77 said:


> there isn't traffic meriting a cross-mountain motorway between Oslo and Bergen (I do, however, believe we will see four+ lanes Oslo-Kristiansand-Stavanger-Bergen in the not too distant future...).


For the near future, you may be right. The complete E39 motorway Kristiansand-Stavanger with 4 lanes will be ready in 2023 according to Minister of Transport Ketil Solvik-Olsen. https://www.nrk.no/rogaland/ministeren-kjorer-e39-og-e18-1.11875392 Stavanger will be the first city on the westcoast with a snow-free connection to the European motorway network. Section Sandnes-Stavanger (16 km) of E39 motorway Kristiansand-Stavanger (235 km) is already completed. Looks good isn’t it?











National Road Administration has made an agreement in May 2016 with Lindesnes and Lyngdal municipality for another new section of the 2x2 motorway E39 Kristiansand-Stavanger. The new section fits to the already in half motorway profile build grade separated section north and south of Feda. 










The selected section will have 3 new motorway interchanges.

That is good news for the construction of the missing link in the E39 motorway Kristiansand -Sandnes. Last section to be approved by local administrations is Lyngdal vest – Sandnes. It is expected to come in Summer 2017.


----------



## berlinwroclaw

ElviS77 said:


> There will be motorway sections, for sure, but a full-profile motorway through the mountains is not even remotely realistic.


Only updating the ancient road Bergen-Oslo is not enough. We live in 21-st century in which poor countries like Slovakia and Croatia have created worldclass motorways in mountain areas connecting cities with less population than Bergen or Oslo. When European trucks cause an accident, newspapers say: “It was a driver without experience”. 










No, the driver expects a motorway and Norway hasn’t. When oil is over in 2040 the Bergen-Oslo motorway is a must for economic survival. I am aware that for many people in Norway outside the south east, long distance car driving is a complete new phenomenon. But this will change when more motorways on the westcoast will be available. Here an answer to the feasibility of the E134 motorway.



ElviS77 said:


> a) unnecessary, as the AADT is low to moderate


1.	“Induced demand”: when increasing the supply of roads, people want to use it even more. 
2.	Experience in all countries in the world is that a motorway attracts traffic.
3.	Norway will have a fast population growth so present AADT is not valid. 
4.	Note that Minister of Transport considers increasing the speed limit to 130 km/h on some sections, so this motorway will attract many airline passengers.
5.	Attraction of drivers who never used Bergen-Oslo: tourists, business men, transport trucks, family visit, etc., etc.
6.	The motorway generates a multiplier effect in houses around exits, business parks, hotels, tourist attractions, etc. 




ElviS77 said:


> b) going to have a massive environmental impact


1. Long tunnels under mountains will improve the impact of the environment on the motorway. Environment groups will support the tunnels; see experiences in other countries with tunnel projects, e.g. in cities and national parks.
2. Modern sound walls help to mitigate the sound problem.
3. Electric cars, no more pollution. Norway has already 25% of its cars electric. It will be 100% by law in 2025 when E134 Bergen-Oslo can be ready.
4. There are no big cities with high demanding environment groups and no national parks with international law agreements, ecoducts will be sufficient.



ElviS77 said:


> c) extremely expensive


1. Norway is a rich oil country. Money should not be a problem. 
2. The government can make a sacrifice by re-arrange the priority list of infrastructure and put E134 motorway on #1 position. Germany did with many East German motorways, by reduction of motorway investments in Western Germany. 
3. Mitigation of costs by incorporating and adapting some existing roads and planned improvements.
3. Borrow budget. EU funds may also help Norway.
4. Return of investment is high. Transport, business and tourist are willing to pay for such a road, track record in many countries via toll and PPP. Again track record in many countries.



ElviS77 said:


> d) impossible, politically speaking


1.	Referendum is a possibility to get a mandate for such a mega-project. Switzerland did with their 57 km tunnel under the Alps. 
2.	Motorways will increase road safety. This has been a key argument for the government to upgrade E39 Kristiansand-Stavanger to full 2x2 motorway.
3.	The motorway passes weak economical areas and will help to stimulate those areas. Another key argument. 

It shows that a complete East West motorway E134 Bergen-Oslo is eminently feasible.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

I agree that Norway should build a motorway network connecting the major cities of the country except Tromsø and Bodø. In that sense, it was good that the government ordered the inclusion of a "motorway plan" (which is a study) in the transportation plan. Some of the route selections are not ideal, but it is a starting point for discussion. The network is very much needed, not for capacity everywhere but for speed of travel and safety. The huge domestic air traffic in Norway is senseless and unsustainable, and much of the leisure travel could be transferred to the roads if the travel times between the greater cities are reduced to 4 hours or so. 

However, we should start with the low hanging fruits. Oslo - Lillehammer /Elverum /Kristiansand-Stavanger will come within a decade or so. There is also some momentum for Stavanger - Bergen, although the costs are high. The next big project should be Trondheim - Oslo. The compounded traffic on the stretches with lowest traffic is in fact much higher than for the various mountain sections Oslo - Bergen, and the costs for Trondheim - Oslo would be significantly lower. When the improvements are completed to Ulsberg from the north and to Lillehammer /Elverum from the south only 250 km or so remains, and there is no need for a number of massive tunnels or a huge bridge like Bergen - Oslo.


----------



## Suburbanist

I think there should be a freeway at least until Mo'I Rana


----------



## berlinwroclaw

ElviS77 said:


> full-profile motorway through the mountains is not even remotely realistic.


It may sound as science fiction when all of your life you are driving over empty ancient mountain roads, when someone is telling you that there should come a motorway... 
But we live in 21-st century and when you look around only in Europe, you see that poor countries like Croatia and Slovakia are building mountain motorways is fast tempo. We live in a time that it is expected that there is a motorway between agglomerations of half a million inhabitants such as Stavanger-Haugesund-Bergen and Oslo…










Preview of a new mountain section E134 Bergen-Oslo motorway? No, it is the D1 motorway in Slovakia.

D1 motorway in poor Slovakia (GDP per capita = 18 139) is between the two biggest cities Bratislava (432 801 inhabitants) and Košice (240 688 inhabitants), 517 km of which 86 km under construction and 109 km in planning.

E134 motorway in rich Norway (GDP per capita = 100 575) is between the two biggest cities Oslo (658 390 inhabitants) and Bergen (278 121 inhabitants), 480 km of 3 km in planning (junction with E18-Drammen West) and 477 km non-existing.










Preview of a new mountain section E134 Bergen-Oslo motorway? No, it is the A7 motorway in Croatia. 

The A7 has an AADT of only 6653. Motorway E134 Bergen-Oslo is expected to have an AADT above 8000. Does Croatia better understand the importance of motorways for the economy and wellness than Norway? When you look at the present road to Bergen-Oslo, yes!

No excuse for Norway that there are mountains, traffic is too low or that it is too expensive to build a motorway between the biggest cities of the country. Why can poor Slovakia and Croatia do what Norway can’t?
There is a tremendous job to do: focus on national priority infrastructure awareness in Norway.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Slovakia and Croatia are not really comparable to the Norwegian topography. The mountain stretches are much longer, with less traffic, resulting in a low cost-benefit ratio. I too think travel times are important to express the need for high-standard roads, judging it by capacity alone will fail the project. 

I drove from near Stryn to Åndalsnes today, via Otta and Dombås. It is maybe 320 km and mostly on roads where you can drive 80 km/h, but including a few stops it took me nearly 6 hours to drive. As a tourist, it doesn't matter too much, but for utility travel it is quite an obstacle.


----------



## italystf

ChrisZwolle said:


> Slovakia and Croatia are not really comparable to the Norwegian topography. The mountain stretches are much longer, with less traffic, resulting in a low cost-benefit ratio. I too think travel times are important to express the need for high-standard roads, judging it by capacity alone will fail the project.
> 
> I drove from near Stryn to Åndalsnes today, via Otta and Dombås. It is maybe 320 km and mostly on roads where you can drive 80 km/h, but including a few stops it took me nearly 6 hours to drive. As a tourist, it doesn't matter too much, but for utility travel it is quite an obstacle.


Population density:
Norway: 14
Croatia: 79
Slovakia: 112

Moreover, Croatia and Sloakia attract transit traffic between different European countries, while Norway obviously doesn't.
That doesn't mean that Norway doesn't deserve good infrastructure, though.



berlinwroclaw said:


> Preview of a new mountain section E134 Bergen-Oslo motorway? No, it is the A7 motorway in Croatia.


That's the first time I notice a pic taken by me posted somewhere else.
Not that is an issue, of course, it means that someone appreciated it. :lol:


----------



## ElviS77

berlinwroclaw said:


> 1.	Referendum is a possibility to get a mandate for such a mega-project. Switzerland did with their 57 km tunnel under the Alps.
> 2.	Motorways will increase road safety. This has been a key argument for the government to upgrade E39 Kristiansand-Stavanger to full 2x2 motorway.
> 3.	The motorway passes weak economical areas and will help to stimulate those areas. Another key argument.
> 
> It shows that a complete East West motorway E134 Bergen-Oslo is eminently feasible.


The thing is, none of these things change the realities of Norwegian national and local politics. And, more importantly, it is highly unlikely that such a project would get significant popular support: we do need some motorways, but not everywhere. Also, Norway is a country roughly the same size as Poland, but Poland's population is seven times larger. In addition, the population is certainly not evenly spread out - approx 40% live within two hours from Oslo. The rest live almost exclusively along the coast. Thus, a coastal motorway Oslo-Kristiansand-Stavanger-Bergen makes sense - both from a national, regional and local perspective - even though a cross-mountain motorway does not.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

I'm in Sunndalsøra currently, there was a sign with the closest train station; 68 kilometers away. I also saw the train to Åndalsnes, it looked more like a bus on rails than an actual train. The train to Bergen is probably scenic, it takes a different route across Hardangervidda than Rv. 7.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

*Air traffic in Norway (and a small comment about Sunndalsøra & Åndalsnes)*

^^ Sunndalsøra is of course quite close to the railway compared with many places at the west coast and northern Norway. You have excellent hiking terrain around Sunndalsøra, if that is your cup of tea. Sunndalsøra itself is an example of industrialization relying on shipping, and in the early days, cheap hydropower close at hand. From an environmental perspective, the Åndalsnes railway is meaningless, as it is not electrified, but it is very beautiful. 


Since I like quantifying things, I have looked into traffic numbers on some domestic air routes in Norway. The route with highest pax number in Norway, in fact Europe's 4th busiest route, is Trondheim - Oslo, which had above 1.9 million pax in 2014. This number probably has risen to about 2 million/year since then, or 5500 per day. Now, it is not straight forward to convert this to road AADT, and there will always be some air traffic and road traffic on alternative routes. On the other hand, a motorway will induce some extra traffic in total, and there may be some transfer from railway. Assuming an average 1.8 person per car (corresponding to leisure travel, the overall average in Norway is 1.55), this converts to around 3000 extra AADT. Under the given assumption, this means that a Trondheim - Oslo motorway could have around 7600 AADT if it were to open today, at the least trafficated sections and ignoring any general traffic growth in the years ahead. For Bergen - Oslo, the traffic both by car and air is a little less, but the tendency is the same.


----------



## hammersklavier

54°26′S 3°24′E;133416363 said:


> While light compared with eg German and Dutch transit routes, truck traffic has a significant share of traffic on the loneliest sections of the main Norwegian domestic transit routes.


Keep in mind that the expected amount of truck traffic is what the road has to be built to handle. Road wear from cars is marginal compared to that of trucks.

I would suppose that Norway's heaviest roads, if an increase in truck traffic is expected, would need to be built to something akin to U.S. Interstate, British or Japanese motorway, or Polish expressway standards rather than the very heavy roads along the main trade routes in the heart of the continent.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

I am no expert in the field, but two additional factors have to be taken into account in the Nordics :


Cold winters: The ground in Norway is many places relatively tight, such that there is naturally a lot of water in the surface layers. Hence, the drained foundation of the road has to go deep and wide enough to avoid freezing water which could lead to serious heave. Recent examples have shown that Norwegian road authorities still do not master this art. 
Use of studded tires and chains lead to increased wear, of course, as do repeatedly freezing and thawing. Choice of top layer hence is important for maintenance intervals.


----------



## Mathias Olsen

54°26′S 3°24′E;133423724 said:


> Since I like quantifying things, I have looked into traffic numbers on some domestic air routes in Norway. The route with highest pax number in Norway, in fact Europe's 4th busiest route, is Trondheim - Oslo, which had above 1.9 million pax in 2014. This number probably has risen to about 2 million/year since then, or 5500 per day. Now, it is not straight forward to convert this to road AADT, and there will always be some air traffic and road traffic on alternative routes. On the other hand, a motorway will induce some extra traffic in total, and there may be some transfer from railway. Assuming an average 1.8 person per car (corresponding to leisure travel, the overall average in Norway is 1.55), this converts to around 3000 extra AADT. Under the given assumption, this means that a Trondheim - Oslo motorway could have around 7600 AADT if it were to open today, at the least trafficated sections and ignoring any general traffic growth in the years ahead. For Bergen - Oslo, the traffic both by car and air is a little less, but the tendency is the same.


Good habit to get the things in numbers  It is interesting that air traffic Trondheim - Oslo is busier than Bergen - Oslo and Stavanger - Oslo. I expect the combination Bergen and Stavanger to Oslo will be not far from factor 2 of Trondheim. So, using your calculations, we may expect 6000 extra AADT for E134 Stavanger/Haugesund/Bergen- Oslo. The threshold to go by car is lower than to go by plane, so people the frequency of car usage can be calculated higher. That is good news for motorway construction. We can get the people from the dirty aircraft into the more comfortable and environment friendly electric cars.

Not all people like flying. There is a group who doesn't want to fly at all, while another group doesn't want to fly in bad weather. For those people, motorways between the big cities of Norway will be a great solution.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

In 2014 the numbers were like this:

Trondheim: 1 918 005 
Bergen: 1 823 062 
Stavanger: 1 569 883 

I.e. TRD was 57 % of BGO+SVG. That percentage is probably on the rise with the downturn of the oil industry on which BGO and SVG depend more than TRD. The april 2016 numbers saw a 2.9% rise on domestic travel from TRD compared with -2.8 and 1.6 for BGO and SVG, respectively.


----------



## Mathias Olsen

54°26′S 3°24′E;133430675 said:


> I am no expert in the field, but two additional factors have to be taken into account in the Nordics :
> 
> 
> Cold winters: The ground in Norway is many places relatively tight, such that there is naturally a lot of water in the surface layers. Hence, the drained foundation of the road has to go deep and wide enough to avoid freezing water which could lead to serious heave. Recent examples have shown that Norwegian road authorities still do not master this art.
> Use of studded tires and chains lead to increased wear, of course, as do repeatedly freezing and thawing. Choice of top layer hence is important for maintenance intervals.












Motorway will close later than an airport in hard winter weather. Snow melting has become much more efficient and also more environment friendly with new information technology guided snow machines and more environment friendly materials. It is true that good driver skills are an important factor in bad winter weather. Also the better cars and improved winter tires are a help for winter conditions. 



54°26′S 3°24′E;133430675 said:


> Recent examples have shown that Norwegian road authorities still do not master this art.



It is indeed a big problem on Rv7 Hardangervidda, but less on Haukeli. Therefore the long sustainable E134 Haukeli tunnel is necessary. 

New sustainable technology is available to use road surface heating with electric cables. Not a cheap solution, but environment friendly and some European motorways already use this technology, e.g. M1 and M4 near London (UK) and A4 Zgorgelec (Poland). Norway should also use it and become a leader in environment friendly road heating.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

I take as granted that roads between between major cities generally never get closed due to bad weather. This is already the situation today with Rv 3 and, I believe, E16. It may be the case with E6 (rarely closed today), E134 and rv 52 with major improvements, eg tunnels. But the air traffic is also rarely affected. I consider this a non-issue.

Note that heave is caused by freezing below the surface, in the foundations of the road, and not on the surface itself. Hence salting does not necessarily help, in fact it may make the situation worse since the surface temperature decreases. Heating all the motorways in Norway I consider an insane and unsustainable solution. In any case, many people will need or at least prefer studded tires in order to safely drive on remote side roads which will not be free from ice or snow in the foreseeable future.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

I drove E6 from Oppdal to Trondheim today. It became markedly busier after the Rv. 3 merges onto E6. The Trondheim bypass is rather busy and I didn't even drove there during rush hour. 

E14 is completely devoid of truck traffic, I did not see a single truck on the hour-long drive to the Swedish border.


----------



## Ingenioren

berlinwroclaw said:


> Electric cars, no more pollution. Norway has already 25% of its cars electric.


Actually it's 3 %. 15 % of new cars sold are electric.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

New car sales are usually only a third or less of all car sales. If you drive in Norway you'll see a lot of EL plates near bigger cities, but almost none in rural areas, in fact I noticed there are a lot of full-size pickup trucks like Chevrolet Silverado or Ford F-250. Vintage American cars also appear popular.


----------



## berlinwroclaw

ChrisZwolle said:


> Slovakia and Croatia are not really comparable to the Norwegian topography.


For the topography argument, here is another case study to compare E134 Bergen-Oslo: A1 Bukarest- Timisoara.

*A new section of motorway E134 Bergen-Oslo? No, it is the A1 Bukarest- Timisoara in Romania.*











Let’s compare the plans of the E134 Bergen-Oslo motorway (or a first half profile stage of it) with the A1 Bukarest-Timisoara motorway. The facts:

Length A1 Bukarest-Timisoara: 547 km, operational: 342; under construction: 89, planning: 116
Length E139 Bergen-Oslo: 480 km, operational: 0; under construction: 0; planning: 480

*Motorway tunnel E134 Bergen-Oslo? No, it is the A1 Timisoara-Bukarest in Romania.*










Mountain section A1 Pitesti-Sibiu 2x2 motorway compared with E139 1x2 road Seljestad – Vagsli 

Map A1 section Pitesti-Sibiu: 
http://media.hotnews.ro/media_server1/image-2015-11-7-20566731-0-traseele-propuse-pentru-a1-pitesti-sibiu.jpg

Map E139 section Seljestad – Vagsli: 
http://g.api.no/obscura/API/dynamic/r1/ece5/tr_1080_590_l_f/0000/berg/2016/3/4/14/kartt.jpg?chk=28B79E

The mountain section of A1 Pitesti-Sibiu is longer. 

Length mountain section: A1: 116 km - E134: 61 km
Total length tunnels: A1: 8,3 km - E134: 15 km
Number of tunnels: A1: 9 - E134: 2 (downsized version: 4)
Total length structures: A1: 21 km or more - E134: 15 km
Costs: A1: 19 billion NOK – E134: 14 billion NOK (downsized version: 7 billion NOK)

The A1 Pitesti-Sibiu mountain section is more expensive than the E139 Seljestad – Vagsli mountain section. 

To compare the two roads better it is possible to add the alternative section E134 Seljestad - Vagsli - Gvammen with 23 km tunnels. For the E134 we have than a section of 120 km and the estimated costs are then 17 billion NOK (downsized version) and 28 billion NOK for halfprofile motorway.

For the road traffic, Norway has 177 more car owners per 1000 people than Romania. E139 is the only direct way of Bergen to Europe, while the A1 is not the only way to Europe for eastern Romania. The population of Oslo agglomeration is fast growing with 2% every year, the highest growth in Europe, while many people in Romania immigrate to other countries. No country in the world is so rich as Norway, while Romania belongs to the poorest countries in Europe, see GDP per capita http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD


GDP per capita Romania: 9 200
GDP per capita Norway: 101 000

Why is Norway is not able to build a motorway between its two biggest agglomerations of 0.5 million and 1.5 million over 480 km? 

Topographical blockades cannot be a problem as explained by the example of the Romanian motorway.


----------



## berlinwroclaw

Ingenioren said:


> Actually it's 3 %. 15 % of new cars sold are electric.


Yes, it is true there are only 2.6% registered full electric cars in Norway.
https://www.ssb.no/en/transport-og-reiseliv/statistikker/bilreg/aar/2016-03-30

I retrieved my info from a calculation with hybrid cars in a percentage of 25%.
http://insideevs.com/norway-electric-car-sales-nearly-26-market-share-march/


----------



## Sunfuns

Is anyone here really arguing that a motorway through Norwegian mountains is technically not feasible? Of course it could be built, the argument only is whether that is a good use of money...


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

No, I have not seen anybody saying that would be impossible technically.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

ChrisZwolle said:


> I drove E6 from Oppdal to Trondheim today. It became markedly busier after the Rv. 3 merges onto E6. The Trondheim bypass is rather busy and I didn't even drove there during rush hour.
> 
> E14 is completely devoid of truck traffic, I did not see a single truck on the hour-long drive to the Swedish border.


You really explore the sorry state of Norwegian highways! Where to next, straight to Stockholm via E4an? 

Norwegian rural traffic will pick up significantly in little more than a week when school holidays start, the opposite effect will be seen in the cities. The Trondheim eastern bypass (E6) has about 45 000 AADT, just south of the split to the city center the traffic is somewhat higher, but with more lanes.


----------



## hammersklavier

54°26′S 3°24′E;133430675 said:


> I am no expert in the field, but two additional factors have to be taken into account in the Nordics :
> 
> 
> Cold winters: The ground in Norway is many places relatively tight, such that there is naturally a lot of water in the surface layers. Hence, the drained foundation of the road has to go deep and wide enough to avoid freezing water which could lead to serious heave. Recent examples have shown that Norwegian road authorities still do not master this art.
> Use of studded tires and chains lead to increased wear, of course, as do repeatedly freezing and thawing. Choice of top layer hence is important for maintenance intervals.


I suspect the use of snow chains primarily affects the pavement, rather than the subsurface roadbed. It's also worth pointing out that several other nations (the other Nordics, the U.S., Canada, China, Russia, Japan, and maybe South Korea?) have motorways in similar climatic conditions as Norway; the use of snow chains therefore appear to have a marginal effect on the overall maintenance cycle.

Your point about the subsurface conditions is much more interesting. Norway is old and mountainous; most other motorways in cold mountainous environments run through far younger and therefore looser terrain. The greater expense associated with building for this terrain may well cancel out the cost savings associated with not expecting as much truck traffic.


----------



## berlinwroclaw

Sunfuns said:


> Is anyone here really arguing that a motorway through Norwegian mountains is technically not feasible? Of course it could be built, the argument only is whether that is a good use of money...


Good use of money is called in social economy “netto social benefits”. The impact for the society minus costs. The netto social benefits for a motorway Bergen-Oslo, or something as close as possible to it, are + 19 billion NOK.










You know that in Switzerland 64 percent of Swiss voters accepted the new double tube Gotthard base tunnel in a 1992 referendum. Project costs 8.85 billion euro = 83 billion NOK. Compare this with 40 billion NOK for the motorway Bergen – Oslo! All costs of the tunnels were done by the Swiss, a country not in EU, not so rich as Norway and more challenging topography. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gotthard_Base_Tunnel


----------



## berlinwroclaw

ChrisZwolle said:


> on the hour-long drive to the Swedish border.


I am curious about your impression of the Swedish E4 motorway under construction.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

I won't be going on E4 this trip, I'll take E45 south from Östersund.


----------



## MattiG

hammersklavier said:


> I suspect the use of snow chains primarily affects the pavement, rather than the subsurface roadbed. It's also worth pointing out that several other nations (the other Nordics, the U.S., Canada, China, Russia, Japan, and maybe South Korea?) have motorways in similar climatic conditions as Norway; the use of snow chains therefore appear to have a marginal effect on the overall maintenance cycle.
> 
> Your point about the subsurface conditions is much more interesting. Norway is old and mountainous; most other motorways in cold mountainous environments run through far younger and therefore looser terrain. The greater expense associated with building for this terrain may well cancel out the cost savings associated with not expecting as much truck traffic.


Well...

At least in the Nordics, snow chains are not used on motorways as a routine. Instead, studded tires are in common use, especially in the northern areas where traffic volumes are low enough to live without salting. The main roads are repaved regularly as the studs make grooves on the pavement.

The roadbed is not any problem in the Nordics: It is built strong enough to resist the heavy forces caused be repeating freezing and melting. Every country has a lot knowledge on building roads in the arctic areas. Studs (and passenger cars in general) have virtually no impact on the roadbed, but its lifecycle is dependent on the volume and characteristics of heavy traffic.

In general, most of the cost to build does not come from the road and roadbed itself but from more complex structures likes bridges, junctions, tunnels, telematics, etc. 

Quite a big chunk of the maintenance cost goes to keeping to roads in use in the winter. The Oslo-Bergen route climbs quite high, regardless which corridor is selected, and the winter conditions may be extreme. The maintenance cost can be reduced by investing in tunnels, which are expensive to build.


----------



## Mathias Olsen

berlinwroclaw said:


> the alternative section E134 Seljestad - Vagsli - Gvammen with 23 km tunnels.


This section E134 Seljestad- Vagsli – Gvammen is in fact about Grungedal – Gvammen. Seljestad – Vagsli is not relevant here, because there is not discussion about it. At Grungedal the existing E134 goes to Vinje, Amot and Seljord. The alternative you discussed is about a shortcut between Grungedal and Gvammen that will save 30 minutes and will have a better impact on society.
Actual additional improvements for safety and journey time are now evaluated for the section Grungedal – Gvammen, the so called “Rauland option”. 










The proposed section is in study within the Road Administration and a test case for the balance national priority over local priority. 

Will the local politicians win by a section over Seljord and Amot? 
Or will the central government win by putting focus to national interest of a fast Bergen-Oslo road via Rauland? 
Netto social benefits show that the Rauland option has a positive balance of 12 billion, while an update of the present road via Seljord will have a negative balance of 1 billion. The Seljord option will have a lost capital of 13 billion. Therefore the Road Administration has chosen the Rauland section and that is a very good contribution for a fast road Bergen-Oslo, because it will save 30 minutes. 
http://www.vegforumov.no/trase-via-rauland-og-arm-til-bergen-har-avgjorende-betydning-for-ny-e134/#more-1013

The update of the present road is including a tunnel already under construction from Arhus to Gvammen.
The Rauland option has 15 km of the road in tunnels to make it possible that the travelling time on the E139 motorway Bergen-Oslo will be reduced to 3,5 hours or less and will be better for the environment in Seljord, Amot and Gvammen.


----------



## Mathias Olsen

MattiG said:


> Quite a big chunk of the maintenance cost goes to keeping to roads in use in the winter. The Oslo-Bergen route climbs quite high, regardless which corridor is selected, and the winter conditions may be extreme. The maintenance cost can be reduced by investing in tunnels, which are expensive to build.


Tunnels are indeed the best solution for sustainable roads in high areas between Bergen and Oslo. To reduce the costs, road roofs against snow or landslides may also help and can be cost effective. The proposed new 3 Haukeli new tunnels on E134 by Road Administration do not ensure 100% snow free passage. But by connecting the 3 tunnels with road roofs it will be possible to have such a snow free passage of Bergen-Oslo.










Offtopic: It also helps against landslides


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

ChrisZwolle said:


> I won't be going on E4 this trip, I'll take E45 south from Östersund.


I hope you like trees ;-)


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

hammersklavier said:


> I suspect the use of snow chains primarily affects the pavement, rather than the subsurface roadbed. It's also worth pointing out that several other nations (the other Nordics, the U.S., Canada, China, Russia, Japan, and maybe South Korea?) have motorways in similar climatic conditions as Norway; the use of snow chains therefore appear to have a marginal effect on the overall maintenance cycle.
> 
> Your point about the subsurface conditions is much more interesting. Norway is old and mountainous; most other motorways in cold mountainous environments run through far younger and therefore looser terrain. The greater expense associated with building for this terrain may well cancel out the cost savings associated with not expecting as much truck traffic.





MattiG said:


> Well...
> 
> At least in the Nordics, snow chains are not used on motorways as a routine. Instead, studded tires are in common use, especially in the northern areas where traffic volumes are low enough to live without salting. The main roads are repaved regularly as the studs make grooves on the pavement.
> 
> The roadbed is not any problem in the Nordics: It is built strong enough to resist the heavy forces caused be repeating freezing and melting. Every country has a lot knowledge on building roads in the arctic areas. Studs (and passenger cars in general) have virtually no impact on the roadbed, but its lifecycle is dependent on the volume and characteristics of heavy traffic.
> 
> In general, most of the cost to build does not come from the road and roadbed itself but from more complex structures likes bridges, junctions, tunnels, telematics, etc.
> 
> Quite a big chunk of the maintenance cost goes to keeping to roads in use in the winter. The Oslo-Bergen route climbs quite high, regardless which corridor is selected, and the winter conditions may be extreme. The maintenance cost can be reduced by investing in tunnels, which are expensive to build.


Studded tires (and use of snow chains for tractors etc. and trucks without proper tires on slippery conditions) are of course only a problem for the top layer, which hence has to be maintained more often than further south. Sorry if I was not clear on that, but the durability of pavement, and hence maintenance intervals vary greatly. With top layer I actually meant the pavement, but in extreme cases also the next layer (usually asphalt on main roads) could be affect. 

There are of course known solutions to heave, and as I mentioned in my initial post, the solution is to use a thick enough layer that is drained and isolate against the ground, in practice crushed rock ("pukk"). However, this has a cost, and you don't have to drive far in Norway before you discover that this is a investment cost that has not always been allowed, leading to increased costs in the long run and / or a bumpy road from after the first winter ad infinitum. A rather recent example of this is E-14 expressway east of Kløfta (used to be Rv 2):









Heave is most important to consider when the road is built on ground with varying quality, eg sand and clay, and of least problem if built directly on solid rock. In the latter case you just need to make sure that the road builder itself do no introduce sand etc that could lead to heave.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Trees is what Sweden is all about  E4 is too much of a detour, it's already 250 km to Sundsvall from here, before you turn south. I have a 2000 kilometer drive back home ahead of me, so I'll take E45 and then E20. I plan to drive it in three days, starting tomorrow. I prefer to drive only half a day on the last day, from southern Denmark to NL, so I have some time at home before turning in for the night. 2000 km in two days - half of it on two-lane roads - is too exhaustive for me.


----------



## Suburbanist

My freeway only record of solo single day driving is 1640km... 1000km on a single day with 2 Lane roads is tiring though


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

Off-topic, and not something to brag about, but in my younger and, I believe, more stupid days, I performed a couple of solo drives of the order of 1000 km, both on 2-lane roads and freeways, for two days in a row, and on several continents. The record non-stop (and in hindsight reckless) drive was however 2 500 km. There were more people in the car, but I had to do most of the driving, particularly towards the end. Definitely not recommended. 

I would not mind if some legal limit and control were introduced for long distance driving for private cars. Maybe not as strict as for trucks today, but there should be some kind of control.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Do people drive Trondheim - Narvik in one day? I saw a sign past Trondheim that said Narvik 900 km. That seems awful far on two-lane roads. I feel tired after driving 6 hours in the mountains of western Norway.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

I am sure someone does. For most people (at least Norwegians), however, air  would probably be the choice of transportation from Trondheim to anything from around Bodø and northwards. Driving by car is only relevant if you have a lot of luggage or are on a car holiday. In the latter case you probably want make some stops....


----------



## MattiG

54°26′S 3°24′E;133466593 said:


> I am sure someone does. For most people (at least Norwegians), however, air  would probably be the choice of transportation from Trondheim to anything from around Bodø and northwards. Driving by car is only relevant if you have a lot of luggage or are on a car holiday. In the latter case you probably want make some stops....


I have made 20+ tourist trips in Norway. In my opinion, the E6 section Trondheim-Narvik-Skibotn is quite boring. Of course, there are highlights like Saltfjellet, but for most of these 1150 kilometers the road goes through endless forests. In July-August, the E6 is mainly for Germans and Italians making their pilgrimage to Nordkapp. If they spent a few days more, they could enjoy the coastal road 17 and the scenic areas in the southwest Norway.


----------



## MattiG

54°26′S 3°24′E;133461756 said:


> There are of course known solutions to heave, and as I mentioned in my initial post, the solution is to use a thick enough layer that is drained and isolate against the ground, in practice crushed rock ("pukk"). However, this has a cost, and you don't have to drive far in Norway before you discover that this is a investment cost that has not always been allowed, leading to increased costs in the long run and / or a bumpy road from after the first winter ad infinitum. A rather recent example of this is E-14 expressway east of Kløfta (used to be Rv 2):


Aaargh. Anything similar is seldom visible on the Finnish main road network, except some experimental legs. We have quite strict technical standards for the roadbed in various conditions. It money is to be saved, Finland cuts down the number of horizontal kilometers while Norway seems to save in vertical centimeters.

(E16, It think, not E14.)



> Heave is most important to consider when the road is built on ground with varying quality, eg sand and clay, and of least problem if built directly on solid rock. In the latter case you just need to make sure that the road builder itself do no introduce sand etc that could lead to heave.


This is one of the extreme spots in Finland: It is a hidden 6-lane bridge on 4/7/E75 in Helsinki. The motorway crosses a swamp and the solid earth is found at the depth of 30 meters. The bridge was built in early 1970's and it still is the #2 bridge in Finland by area. Quite a few people know it is a bridge.


----------



## Suburbanist

I think Nordkkap must be one of those off-the-way attractions that are wildly more popular with foreigners than locals who are used to similar or resembling surroundings.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Nordkapp is probably not the most scenic part of Norway anyway. Isn't it much more interesting to go to Lofoten?


----------



## MattiG

Suburbanist said:


> I think Nordkkap must be one of those off-the-way attractions that are wildly more popular with foreigners than locals who are used to similar or resembling surroundings.


True. But after visiting this once-in-a-lifetime sight, I recommend taking a trip to Havøysund, Gamvik, Berlevåg or Hamningberg. Less people and more interesting nature. And no expensive entrance fees.


----------



## Suburbanist

ChrisZwolle said:


> Nordkapp is probably not the most scenic part of Norway anyway. Isn't it much more interesting to go to Lofoten?


I want to drive someday all the way there for the lulz and to check the ever-shorter trees (in a much gradual transition than climbing an alpine road, e.g., due to latitude, not altitude).

But if/when I do it, I'd probably use Rv7 and drive back via Finland/Sweden 

I think there might be so interesting ice fields in the mountains east of Glomfjord, they have many national parks there apparently.


----------



## Suburbanist

Anyway, are there plans to roll out complete electrical charging infrastructure to Nordkap, and all along E16 and Rv-7?


----------



## Mathias Olsen

Suburbanist said:


> Anyway, are there plans to roll out complete electrical charging infrastructure to Nordkap, and all along E16 and Rv-7?


There will be plans in future. Norway first needs to establish good coverage of electric charging on motorways, E6 Svinesund-Hamar, E18, E39 Kristiansand-Stavanger and on E134 Bergen-Oslo. 

Check out for yourself electric charging stations in Europe: https://ev-charging.com/de/en


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

MattiG said:


> I have made 20+ tourist trips in Norway. In my opinion, the E6 section Trondheim-Narvik-Skibotn is quite boring. Of course, there are highlights like Saltfjellet, but for most of these 1150 kilometers the road goes through endless forests. In July-August, the E6 is mainly for Germans and Italians making their pilgrimage to Nordkapp. If they spent a few days more, they could enjoy the coastal road 17 and the scenic areas in the southwest Norway.


I wholeheartedly disagree with you. Granted, Rv 17 is one of the most beautiful long distance drives I am aware, but it is fairly slow, and not something you want to drive twice in your holiday. On your return trip there are no better alternative than E6, which, in my opinion, overall is one of the most interesting long distance drives Norway has to offer. Granted, unless you like forests, the 220 km section Snåsa - Mosjøen can be a bit tedious, but not any more than the average rural road of South - Eastern Norway, and it is certainly more varied than the E45 Chris just has endured. The rest of the route you defined varies between beautiful and spectacular in my book, with highlights such Tysfjord (with Stetind which I showed above, 4th picture), Ranafjorden, and Ofoten. Personally I also really like inner Troms and the drive along the historic farming landscape along Trondheimsfjorden. In general I prefer the landscapes of Northern Norway to that in the Southwestern Norway. In Northern Norway the landscape is generally more open such that actually are able to see the mountains better. In poor weather, driving along a narrow fjord in western Norway can be quite depressing. 


ChrisZwolle said:


> Nordkapp is probably not the most scenic part of Norway anyway. Isn't it much more interesting to go to Lofoten?


The Nordkapp area is very scenic, but it is also a very long drive even from most parts of Norway. It is also a tourist trap, but you do not have to enter the platou. In of my many favorites in Northern Norway is Senja. It is as beautiful as Lofoten, but with far less tourists.


----------



## berlinwroclaw

54°26′S 3°24′E;133478653 said:


> The Nordkapp area is very scenic, but it is also a very long drive even from most parts of Norway.


Why travelling such a long distance, while comfortable other areas are within handreach? Such as here on E134 near existing 1x2 Røldalstunnelen. 



















Røldal looks as a nice tourist area. The steep mountains may look nice in summer for tourists, but blocks the road frequently in winter. In winter it is a paradise for wintersport, but a hell in for Bergen-Oslo drivers.



















Norway deserves a motorway between East and West. Better for business and for tourism.


----------



## MattiG

54°26′S 3°24′E;133478653 said:


> I wholeheartedly disagree with you. Granted, Rv 17 is one of the most beautiful long distance drives I am aware, but it is fairly slow, and not something you want to drive twice in your holiday. On your return trip there are no better alternative than E6, which, in my opinion, overall is one of the most interesting long distance drives Norway has to offer.


Rv17 and E6 are, of course, are the only N-S options in Norway on that latitude. And Rv17 is slow, I know. If I recall, my trip from Fauske over Rv17 to Trondheim took four days. If needed, the return trip can be done via Sweden. The route of that trip took place via Arjeplog in Sweden, Junkerdalen, Salstraumen, Rv17, Trondheim, Ålesund and back via Stockholm.

If I needed to make a trip from the Central Europe to Nordkapp, I would take the Hirsthals-Kristiansand ferry, spend time in the southwest fjord area, take E14 from Trondheim to Östersund in Sweden, and then E45 to Finland and then to Alta via Enontekiö.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

^^ Seriously, you prefer E-45 to E6? Well, I guess you are a Finn that love the Taiga, but I then understand even less regarding your comment on forest. Surely, you willl see a lot more trees, a lot less mountains and sizeable towns, and no fjords / sea along E-45 compared with E6:nuts:



berlinwroclaw said:


> Why travelling such a long distance, while comfortable other areas are within handreach? Such as here on E134 near existing 1x2 Røldalstunnelen.


This is a matter of taste, of course. Don't get me wrong, I travel to Hardanger almost every year and love the area, especially when the weather is OK. I go much more seldom up north, but everytime has been magic. It is about the openess combined with wild mountains and sea, and very special light, both summer (midnight sun, but also more reddish light during daytime) and winter (bluish / dusk / northern lights). Northern Norway I also enjoy in bad weather, whereas I often find the low clouds that sometimes form a ceiling on narrow west-coast fjords (and valleys) almost claustrophobic.

My personal conclusion is that in Norway it is in fact almost impossible to go wrong, except perhaps inner south-east which I find a bit uninspiring, but for me the true magic is up north.


----------



## MattiG

54°26′S 3°24′E;133481187 said:


> ^^ Seriously, you prefer E-45 to E6?


If you have to select from two boring choices, the faster is often better.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

Some example pictures from this boring road E6....approximately order from south to north, starting just north of Trondheim, and stopping just north of Narvik (the interested reader should explore the rest to Skibotn using google maps or similar ;-) )

*Hell station:*








*Fættenfjorden, Tirpitz was anchored here during the WW2:*








*Stiklestad midieval church, built on the battle ground of the most famous battle of Norway at all times, where the patron saint of Norway, St. Olaf, fell in 1030 AD. 5 km turn-off from E6. St. Olaf was later buried in Trondheim, which caused massive pilgrimage as well as the construction of the Nidaros cathedral:*








*Steinkjer, future northern terminus of future Norwegian motorway network?:*








*Majavatn (in the most "boring" section Snåsa-Mosjøen):*








*Korgenfjellet, Lukttinden (OK, you need to follow the old road rather than the new tunnel to see this view):*








*Okstindan, tallest mountain of Northern Norway:*








*Mo i Rana. Talking about trees, Rana was traditionally seen as the northermost place where spruce could grow, but I am not sure if that is true anymore:*








*Crossing of the polar circle (E6 is right next to the railway):*








*Between Fauske and Narvik:*








*Mørsvikbotn:*








*From the Tysfjord ferry, at the bottom of the fjord Norway is only a few km wide, and there is no road going around:*








*Stetind again, a 15 km turnoff is needed in order to see this mountain, which competes with Snøhetta visible from E6 Trondheim-Oslo for the title "The national mountain of Norway":*








*Narvik, known from fighting during WW2. Its ski resort has close to 900 m vertical fall:*








*Rombak:*


----------



## OulaL

54°26′S 3°24′E;133359006 said:


> See eg http://www.bedrevei.no/abv-veikart/ for a better solution :


Talk about ambitious... let's just say diplomatically "I believe when I see".

I couldn't help noticing that E6 in Finnmark is rerouted over Ifjordfjell. How does that work in winter?

Also E75 seems to have its endpoint changed from Vardø to Kirkenes. This is weird since the current E75 serves Vadsø as well, and on the Finnish side the road to Kirkenes has a much lower standard. Same goes for Finnish 92, which apparently is supposed to become E69.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

Well, Finnmark has clearly not been their main focus point, the population is very sparce, and the roads are fairly decent that taken into account. I guess their main focus has been to design on the map a working backbone network. In that sense, Vadsø, as you mention, is not really relevant, with only 6 000 or so inhabitants. Sure, it should be connected to the network with decent road, but the last kms do not have to be an E-road.

Apparently at least the Ifjordfjell change has some local and professional support: https://www.nrk.no/troms/vil-flytte-e6-til-ifjordfjellet-1.1463885

One thing I did not notice earlier, btw is that the aforementioned Fv 17 is upgraded to an Rv again and seems to go all the way to Lofoten. That would certainly be a fun road to drive....

And yes, this plan is ambitious, but completing at least the southern Norway triangle would be great ;-)


----------



## OulaL

So the point is that since neither today's roads in Tana Valley nor Ifjordfjell are acceptable as for E road standard, one of them has to be upgraded anyway; and if Ifjordfjell is chosen for E6 and E75 is rerouted from Inari to Kirkenes, then Tana Valley loses both of its E roads and can be left as it is


----------



## berlinwroclaw

54°26′S 3°24′E;133490755 said:


> completing at least the southern Norway triangle would be great ;-)


More precise: completing the southern Norway triangle to meet European motorway network standards. Check out the following about Norwegian hestitation to plan the E134 motorway Bergen-Oslo compared what is normal in Europe:

*Opening new motorway tunnel E134 Bergen-Oslo? No, it is on the motorway A44 Kassel-Eisenach in Germany.*










Compare the A44 Kassel-Eisenach with the E134 Bergen-Oslo and conclude that it is not too much to invest in a motorway between the biggest cities:

Map A44 section Kassel - Eisenach: 
http://www.hna.de/bilder/2014/07/30/3742091/1857236522-a44.jpg

Map E139 section Seljestad – Vagsli: 
http://g.api.no/obscura/API/dynamic/...jpg?chk=28B79E

*New motorway section E134 Bergen-Oslo? No, it is on the motorway A44 Kassel-Eisenach in Germany.*











Length section: A44: 69 km – E134: 61 km
Number of tunnels: A44: 13 – E134: 2 (downsized version: 4)
Length tunnels: A44: 14 km – E134: 15 km
Costs A44: NOK 9.36 billion NOK – E134: NOK 14 billion (downsized version: NOK 7 billion)
Opening: A44: 2019 – E134: unknown

GDP per captica (in USD): Germany: 46 - Norway: 101
Germany is poor compared to Norway. Too expensive to pay a snow-free motorway is no excuse. 

The projected motorway E134 Bergen-Oslo will be the only direct connection between East and West in Norway. The motorway A44 Kassel-Eisenach is only a shortcut, a luxurious solution, while the E139 is essential. The economical benefits for the motorway E134 Bergen-Oslo are much higher than for the motorway A44 Kassel-Eisenach.
The difference is that the governance in Germany wants to inverst in unity between East and West, while Norway doesn’t wants to pay the price for worldclass motorways. When will Norway realiste that it is no longer a nation of fishermen and farmers with village-thinking?


----------



## Suburbanist

I don't want the be mean but I think you already made your point very clear about German highways, and there is really no need for you to push this country x country thing here that way with 6 posts in one week. At least on this sections of SSC we don't go on flame wars like that. Also, most people's people check several threads of same continent so maybe you can post more about DE projects on DE thread?


----------



## Mathias Olsen

Suburbanist said:


> to push this country x country thing here that way


There is a very good reason to compare roads in Norway with roads of other countries, because it is a hot topic within Norwegian media. There have been many articles in many newspapers in Norway and it has been discussed in the government and national road administration.

Bård Hoksrud (member FRP) has warned Norway has now the slowest speed on the road between the biggest cities in Europe:



> A survey by Ramboll as compared 12 European countries showed that *Norway has the lowest average speed drive measured in km/h between the cities* included in the survey (Oslo, Bergen, Trondheim, Stavanger, Tromsø), by 65 km/h.
> Fastest it goes in Germany. The German motorway stretch Hamburg-München tops the list with an average speed of 113 km/h.
> http://www.vg.no/forbruker/bil-baat...ropa-vi-er-forbikjoert-av-albania/a/10060847/












Bård Hoksrud at motorway construction in Albania. Norway can learn a lot from …….. Albania. The Road Administration tries to mitigate the bad situation of Norway compared with the poorest countries in Europe like Albania, Croatia and Romania. But they have to admit that *there is great need for a better Norwegian road standard*.

Putting attention to the fact that Norway has an underdeveloped road network and a shame for Europe is the only thing we can do to make politicians aware that Norway needs a task force for motorways to bring this country to European standards.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

^^
I think that everybody here agrees in general on the need for improvement of Norwegian highways (with a bit varying level of ambitions, of course), but I agree that repeatedly focusing on a single Norwegian route and comparing it with relative unrelated projects abroad become a bit tiring in the end. This is simply not the place to convince decision makers, if that is the goal.

With regards to Albania, we may have something to learn, but so do they: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate 
~20 times as many road fatalities per vehicle, and about 4 times as many per capita.....


OulaL said:


> So the point is that since neither today's roads in Tana Valley nor Ifjordfjell are acceptable as for E road standard, one of them has to be upgraded anyway; and if Ifjordfjell is chosen for E6 and E75 is rerouted from Inari to Kirkenes, then Tana Valley loses both of its E roads and can be left as it is


Except "E69" in the lower (northern) part?

You seem to have very good knowledge of Finnmark, much better than the average Norwegian who probably has not even been in that huge county, which is 13 % bigger than Denmark. (I have only been there once myself, as a kid.) Hence, if you study the map carefully, you see that the only thing they promise for Finnmark is "good rural highway", and no improvements have been included in their budgets. So, in the virtual case were this plan was approved, what would happen in the beginning is that new signs would be put in place. Secondly, locals would use the new status to argue for improvements, but it would be a gradual process.


----------



## OulaL

Well, I might guess that a large share of Finnish drivers who know Norwegian roads at all, only know them in Troms and Finnmark. Probably Nordland but rarely south of Tysfjord, where the road ends as we all know. :lol:

The map actually does show a completely new section on E6 between Alta and Lakselv, cutting some 50 km, but indeed there is no mention about Ifjordfjell apart from renumbering the existing 98. Making that winter safe would probably require long tunnels, not easily justified over there.


----------



## MattiG

OulaL said:


> So the point is that since neither today's roads in Tana Valley nor Ifjordfjell are acceptable as for E road standard, one of them has to be upgraded anyway; and if Ifjordfjell is chosen for E6 and E75 is rerouted from Inari to Kirkenes, then Tana Valley loses both of its E roads and can be left as it is


Earlier, the road over Ifjordfjellet was the main road, number 6. The Tana valley road was built to make a safer all-year route. 

In my opinion, the E6 leg Karasjok-Tana bru is pretty acceptable because the traffic volume is low. However, they should clean the zillion bushes away, because they block the river view.


----------



## Suburbanist

Slightly off-topic question: are all coastal Norwegian ports all the way to Kirkenes ice-free year round?


----------



## ChrisZwolle

MattiG said:


> However, they should clean the zillion bushes away, because they block the river view.


This is unfortunately a problem in many countries, the view from the road could be so much better without bushes or endless planted trees along the road. Along Hardangerfjord and Sognefjord the view is frequently blocked by a line of trees.


----------



## MattiG

OulaL said:


> Well, I might guess that a large share of Finnish drivers who know Norwegian roads at all, only know them in Troms and Finnmark. Probably Nordland but rarely south of Tysfjord, where the road ends as we all know. :lol:


The logic is easy: As the highest peaks in Finland lie in the north, the same applies to Norway. Thus, let us go to northern Norway to see mountains.


----------



## OulaL

MattiG said:


> The logic is easy: As the highest peaks in Finland lie in the north, the same applies to Norway. Thus, let us go to northern Norway to see mountains.


It's also language and money. It is possible to get accommodation in Finland, buy food to go from Finland, refill the tank in Finland and then drive a little around in a (notoriously expensive) foreign country without actually needing to talk to anyone or pay for anything while there.


----------



## berlinwroclaw

Suburbanist said:


> I think you already made your point very clear about German highways


Thanks for the compliment 



Suburbanist said:


> Also, most people's people check several threads of same continent so maybe you can post more about DE projects on DE thread?


I don't understand. Do you mean that according to the statistics of SSC people check motorways here and in several other countries? 



Suburbanist said:


> you can post more about DE projects on DE thread


Are you a moderator or business worker of SSC?


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

This discussion is drifting off....


Suburbanist said:


> Slightly off-topic question: are all coastal Norwegian ports all the way to Kirkenes ice-free year round?


Generally yes. The closest the arctic sea ice has been to Norway was 10 km in 1881, but now it is far, far, away. The gulf stream ensures that the sea water generally has a temperature of the order of 10 C, far above the -1.8 or so needed to freeze sea water. Note that different from fresh water (which has maximum density at 4 C), the whole water column has to reach this temperature, as cold sea water is heavier than warm. However, more sheltered areas and some fjords may still freeze over, depending on a range of different factors such as:

Fresh water supply (either from snow or rivers)
Wind and waves
Difference between high and low tide and currents
Water depth
Overal salinity
Air temperature and cloud cover
In practice, these various factors in fact makes south-eastern Norway more prone to ice in harbors and fjords than western, central and northern Norway. For instance, Oslofjorden tend to freeze every 10 years or so, sheltered areas or areas with brakish water freeze more frequently. It usually don't last for long though affect traffic of larger ships. In comparison, eg Trondheimfjorden has never frozen in historic times, due to its large depth and 2.30 m difference between low and high tide and strong currents. That's why the Germans decided to construct a major submarine base there during WW2.








Ice in Oslofjorden, Kattegat and Skagerak 2010








Frozen harbor in Oslofjorden








War time submarine bunker in Trondheim. To bad the concrete was not put to better use, I have heard that the bunkers contain enough to build a 6-lane motorway Trondheim-Oslo. (The Germans btw did in fact plan a motorway Trondheim-Berlin)


ChrisZwolle said:


> This is unfortunately a problem in many countries, the view from the road could be so much better without bushes or endless planted trees along the road. Along Hardangerfjord and Sognefjord the view is frequently blocked by a line of trees.


At least in Norway most of the trees and bushes are not planted, but they represent a safety hazard as they hide moose and other larger animals. The road authorities actually are slightly better than before on clearing trees right next to the road, but there is still room for improvement (to eg Swedish standards). In general there is a lot more forest and trees in Norway than it used to be, due to far less intensive use of the land. Before, farming was common in much steeper terrain, leafy branches were stripped off trees and feeded to the livestock during winter, and in summer the livestock were gracing all over the place, to far up in the mountains.



MattiG said:


> The logic is easy: As the highest peaks in Finland lie in the north, the same applies to Norway. Thus, let us go to northern Norway to see mountains.


Except that the highest mountains of Norway (in terms of absolute altitude) are not in the north...


OulaL said:


> It's also language and money. It is possible to get accommodation in Finland, buy food to go from Finland, refill the tank in Finland and then drive a little around in a (notoriously expensive) foreign country without actually needing to talk to anyone or pay for anything while there.


I have always liked Finns with self-irony, but I am not always sure if that is what it is :lol:


----------



## Suburbanist

Are costs of travel much higher in Finnmark than in Lapland?


----------



## IceCheese

Ingenioren said:


> New "metrobuss" stop on the road between Moss and Son, rather unpractical, no?


They still make em without ped. crossings? What are they doing in Statens Vegvesen all day?


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

^^ Seems like there is no path going to the bus stop at all ?

In Trondheim a campaign started by a taxi driver actually managed to stop work to transform some bus stops with pockets into such these jam- makers. There is so much money wasted on stupidity in this country.


----------



## berlinwroclaw

Ingenioren said:


> I have two electric cars. I have a cheap Citroën and an expensive Tesla. The Citroën is basicly half the range, half the charge speed and doesn't get properly warm in below -10. I certainly wouldn't go on a longer trip with it during winter. The Tesla meanwhile i would take anywhere anytime just for a joyride.
> 
> 
> 
> This road used to be so special, i have taken foreign tourists there as a novelty attraction


Most Norwegians buy a hybrid car. Ever considered a hybrid car?


----------



## MattiG

54°26′S 3°24′E;133544796 said:


> But in the minds of the Norse who were the originators of these names, Finns and Sami were the same.


It is good to understand that "a Finn" and "a Finnish-speaking person" are two different things.

The Finnish and Sami languages share the common Finno-Ugric roots, but the languages got separated perhaps 1500-2500 years ago. Thus, nowadays they are clearly two separate languages.

Sami in fact is not a language but a family of languages or dialects. It is more a political than a linguistic question if the variants are languages or dialects. Currently, there are nine variants sharing six different orthographies. The people tend to understand their neighbors. The longer the E-W distance is, the less people understand each other.


----------



## MattiG

berlinwroclaw said:


> Amazing. The tunnel costed 320 million NOK for a village of 40 people. That is 8 million NOK per person in Jordalen.
> https://www.nrk.no/hordaland/endelig-kunne-de-juble-over-ny-vei-til-jordalen-1.12946538
> 
> Is this a national record in Norway for a road with so much costs per person?


Well... Everything written in the internet is to be treated suspicious.

As the text shows, the reason for building the tunnel were not the 40 people but the plan to build a power plant. Thus, the new road is a side effect.

In the official documents, we can see that 320 million NOK is not the cost of the road but the total cost of the whole project, including the power plant. In the application for a permission to build the power plant, the power company estimated that building a new public road will make an extra cost of about 70 million NOK of the initial total cost estimate of 285 million NOK.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

^^ Historically, quite a few roads have been built in Norway due to hydro power schemes. One example is the Suleskar road (Fv42). The shortest, but not necessarily fastest route Oslo-Stavanger.



MattiG said:


> It is good to understand that "a Finn" and "a Finnish-speaking person" are two different things.
> 
> The Finnish and Sami languages share the common Finno-Ugric roots, but the languages got separated perhaps 1500-2500 years ago. Thus, nowadays they are clearly two separate languages.
> 
> Sami in fact is not a language but a family of languages or dialects. It is more a political than a linguistic question if the variants are languages or dialects. Currently, there are nine variants sharing six different orthographies. The people tend to understand their neighbors. The longer the E-W distance is, the less people understand each other.


It is also quite obvious that the Sami and the (if I may say so) modern Finns have very different ethnic background, what they share is, in the European context at least, a rather rare language family. With regards to the Sami language, there are of course not only wide E-W variations, but also N-S. Remember that there are Sami as far south as Trollheimen /Røros/ Elgå, the latter being 300 km south of Trondheim by car, and 1500 km as the crow flies from the Sami north - eastern limit at the Kola Peninsula. Even between Sami settlements in Norway the distance by car easily become 1700 km, via Sweden and Finland. Historically, it was of course the far longer distance by boat that mattered. No wonder that the languages diverged somewhat.


----------



## Ingenioren

berlinwroclaw said:


> Most Norwegians buy a hybrid car. Ever considered a hybrid car?


Well, yeah i had a Prius since 07



IceCheese said:


> They still make em without ped. crossings? What are they doing in Statens Vegvesen all day?


Aadt here is actually 6000....


----------



## OnTheNorthRoad

hammersklavier said:


> One can argue, however, that Norway's road safety is unusual in that it's derived from the fact that the roads are relatively inconvenient to use, relative to the airlines for passengers and sealanes for freight, and so they are not the country's transportation trunk.
> 
> From this it follows that road improvements that create more traffic would result in a regression towards the global (or at least Scandinavian) mean for Norwegian road safety ... simply because more traffic = more accidents, and more traffic on the motorways = more last-mile traffic = more accidents.
> 
> This puts Norway in rather a strange spot, does it not?


I don't know if your interpretation is correct or not, but it makes the safety argument in favour of highways and cars in general extremely poor. 

Given how obsessed and cost-insensitive society is to safety measures against phenomenon like terrorism, _not facilitating_ more private vehicle traffic seems like a fantastic safety measure guaranteeing tens of lives saved each year.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

All recent motorway openings in Norway have lead to a dramatic decrease in the absolute number of accidents, regardless of any additional traffic growth.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

54°26′S 3°24′E;133556398 said:


> ^^ Historically, quite a few roads have been built in Norway due to hydro power schemes.


Statoil built the Melkøysund Tunnel near Hammerfest to an LNG installation. It's a 2316 meter undersea tunnel, it goes 62 meters below sea level. It is a private road. 

http://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=70.6878&mlon=23.6244#map=14/70.6878/23.6244


----------



## berlinwroclaw

54°26′S 3°24′E;133544796 said:


> Regardless, more motorways and other divided highways would undoubtedly reduce fatality numbers further.


Good point. Motorways are designed for safer high-speed operation and have lower levels of injury per vehicle km than other roads; for example, in 2013, the German motorway fatality rate of 1.9 deaths per billion-travel-kilometers compared favorably with the 6.6 rate on rural roads. http://www.bast.de/EN/Publications/Media/Unfallkarten-national-englisch.pdf?__blob=publicationFile
That means that motorways have a safety level of 347% better than non-motorway roads for travelling between the biggest cities. Since Norway has not any motorway between a big city, the safety can be improved dramatically by constructing motorways between the biggest cities. It cannot be denied that several people died in 2016 again on 1x2 roads between cities that are a motorway in other European countries. They could be alive with the better safety on motorways.

Deadly accident by frontal collision on 1x2 road E39 near Stavanger


----------



## ChrisZwolle

The replacement span of the Skjeggestad Bridge (E18) near Holmestrand opens on 4 July.

The southbound span was affected by a landslide that cause the bridge to nearly collapse and beyond repair. Replacement of the 229 meter long bridge started in November 2015, so it was completed in only 8 months! (Did you read that Germany, not 6 years!  )

http://www.bygg.no/article/1279781

The collapsed bridge:


----------



## berlinwroclaw

ChrisZwolle said:


> it was completed in only 8 months! (Did you read that Germany, not 6 years!  )


Motorway bridge construction is more than only short delivery, it is also about preventing disasters such as here. For a review about bridge construction in Germany and Norway see the following post: 

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=133566593&postcount=8724


----------



## OnTheNorthRoad

54°26′S 3°24′E;133561387 said:


> All recent motorway openings in Norway have lead to a dramatic decrease in the absolute number of accidents, regardless of any additional traffic growth.


One can implement safety measures without dramatically encouraging more use of and build society around the least safe transportation method.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

The 'least safe transportation method' is walking, cycling and motorcycling.


----------



## OnTheNorthRoad

Motorcycling is motorized, private vehicle traffic. Walking is unsafe because of motorized, private vehicle traffic.


----------



## Suburbanist

In very few cases walking vs driving is a realistic prospect anywhere in Europe. These are not in competition with each other in lower density area outside town limits.


----------



## berlinwroclaw

OnTheNorthRoad said:


> One can implement safety measures without dramatically encouraging more use of and build society around the least safe transportation method.


Yes, one can do. But about what kind of society are we talking? We are here in democratic Europe, where people have a direct choice about the governance of society, isn't it? When you ask people about their favorite transport they will answer........ a car.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

And even within cities, the competition is generally not walking, but pt (which has little flexibility and hence slow on short distances) and bicycle (which is competitive on shorter distances, but more dangerous). Myself think the health benefits for cycling outweighs the dangers. I am hence a die-hard urban cyclist, and think conditions for us could be improved greatly, but cycling does not suits all needs. In the relative near future, when automated electric cars will be the norm, there is no motorized transportation (except El. bikes) that will be more environmentally friendly, and auto travel will also be very safe. Eg trains actually use more energy per person. We might just start to prepare now.


----------



## metasmurf

Public transport is great if you work in the city centre. If not, not so much.


----------



## OnTheNorthRoad

berlinwroclaw said:


> Yes, one can do. But about what kind of society are we talking? We are here in democratic Europe, where people have a direct choice about the governance of society, isn't it? When you ask people about their favorite transport they will answer........ a car.


Not uniformly, no, and since we're investing in infrastructure for decades ahead, it might be more relevant to ask younger people. 

There are also a number of other variables to consider, such as externalities and overarching vision of city development and sustainability as well as efficiency and social utility.

This is not as simple as the car lobby makes it out to be, if that was the case, europeans would prefer our cities to be as car-centric as american cities and they don't.


----------



## berlinwroclaw

OnTheNorthRoad said:


> This is not as simple as the car lobby makes it out to be, if that was the case, europeans would prefer our cities to be as car-centric as american cities and they don't.


Car lobby? In Norway? Where are your arguments? When there was a car lobby such as in Germany, France, Slovakia, Poland, etc. with a car industry, all big cities in Norway were connected with motorways. Today, Norway is in Europe #1 with the slowest traveling connections by car. Not even two cities with a population of more than 100 000 inhabitants are connected by motorway. You have to go to a developing country to find a similar country.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Although Norwegian cities may not be 'car-centric', 89% of passenger kilometers in Norway are by car. This is on the higher end in Europe (most countries are in the low 80s or high 70s for the modal share of car driving).


----------



## ElviS77

berlinwroclaw said:


> Yes, one can do. But about what kind of society are we talking? We are here in democratic Europe, where people have a direct choice about the governance of society, isn't it? When you ask people about their favorite transport they will answer........ a car.


Sure. Cars are popular, and for obvious reasons. And most Norwegians know very well that we cannot live without them, particularly not in rural areas where public transport is not a viable option (basically 95% of Norway...). In most such areas in this country, motorways won't happen - the traffic is simply too low. Nonetheless, most people in rural Norway want reasonably safe and efficient roads, and that demand has to be balanced against the need for proper motorways in the more populated areas. Bulilding a motorway in one valley and ignoring the neighbouring one is not a viable option. Local politics have significant national impact up here, for obvious reasons: a considerable amount of our GDP comes from rather remote areas.

In addition, we actually trust our politicians. Yes, we criticize them left, right and centre, but we generally vote for the more moderate centre-right or centre-left parties. And when it comes down to the fundamental decisions, we seek agreement and consensus, including left- and right-leaning parties in the process. This makes Norwegian politics fairly predictable, but sometimes slower to change than some would like to see. It can be frustrating, but it is a system that has served us well for decades. As for referendums, we keep those for the truly exceptional decisions - independence from Sweden, republic or monarchy, EU membership... and banning the sale of alcohol...


----------



## metasmurf

Norway to me is a bit "sprawly", and I don't mean like in the US, but that the population is less compact than Sweden, meaning a more vivid rural environment which is good, but it also comes with higher car dependency as its harder to cover a scattered low density population distribution with public transport. The small house to apartment ratio is way higher than Sweden also, even in cities. I can't speak for the Oslo area though as I was like 9 years old when I was there.


----------



## OnTheNorthRoad

ChrisZwolle said:


> Although Norwegian cities may not be 'car-centric', 89% of passenger kilometers in Norway are by car. This is on the higher end in Europe (most countries are in the low 80s or high 70s for the modal share of car driving).


I think they are quite car centric, they're just very small. I meant biggish cities in europe in general; norwegians might be different, I don't know, but I still think they want their cities to be dense, cater to pedestrians and PT if they got to choose by actions, not just by answering a q about whether they like to drive cars. Apartment prices in inner Oslo reflect some of those actions.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Public transport, walking and cycling work well in inner city areas. However, the far majority of the urban population does not live in inner city areas. Norwegian metropolitan areas are fairly sprawled out.

The main road network in Oslo is very substandard for a city of this size, in particular many trips that don't begin or end in the inner city have to go through substandard 'motorways'. The geography of Oslo is also not as favorable, many trips are circular or tangential in character, but traffic has to go through narrow two-lane streets and substandard motorways.


----------



## ElviS77

metasmurf said:


> The small house to apartment ratio is way higher than Sweden also, even in cities. I can't speak for the Oslo area though as I was like 9 years old when I was there.


Even in the Oslo area, one-family housing is far more common than in most other European countries. We are also very fond of owning our homes...


----------



## OnTheNorthRoad

ChrisZwolle said:


> Public transport, walking and cycling work well in inner city areas. However, the far majority of the urban population does not live in inner city areas. Norwegian metropolitan areas are fairly sprawled out.
> 
> The main road network in Oslo is very substandard for a city of this size, in particular many trips that don't begin or end in the inner city have to go through substandard 'motorways'. The geography of Oslo is also not as favorable, many trips are circular or tangential in character, but traffic has to go through narrow two-lane streets and substandard motorways.


My point is that we should strive to make inner city living much more dominant at least in Oslo, and the story about the car and how its use should go down is intertwined with this effort, I don't really care what they want in western, middle or northern norway (but I wish Bergen and Trondheim all the best,but I don't have high hopes), but I'm sure all the ambitious, young people in car dependant, rural areas will want to move to Oslo or abroad if our cities don't become more attractive and less sprawly and car dependant. With the right developments, Oslo muni can easily house 1 million people that don't need to use cars. That would also, given the right developments, be a superiorly attractive city in Norway. 

If it's really worth it to spend a ton of money to upgrade the substandard roads (but why? safety? prestige?), that's fine I guess as long as capacity isn't substantially increased with the known, negative externalities that will bring with it in terms of pollution, congestion and so on.


----------



## Mathias Olsen

ChrisZwolle said:


> Norwegian metropolitan areas are fairly sprawled out.


Yes. Oslo agglomeration is 1.8 million inhabitants over a greater area. Bergen-Haugesund-Stavanger area has more than 0.5 million. This kind of population concentration are comparable with many other agglomerations in Europe. Therefore, the cry for a motorway between East and West will become louder and louder. The impact on society will be greater after 2040 when Norway needs 21-st century export connections.



ChrisZwolle said:


> The main road network in Oslo is very substandard for a city of this size, in particular many trips that don't begin or end in the inner city have to go through substandard 'motorways'. The geography of Oslo is also not as favorable, many trips are circular or tangential in character, but traffic has to go through narrow two-lane streets and substandard motorways.


That means a loss for the economy and one can calculate how many billions it is every year. The benefits to establish an adequate motorway network by Ring 4 and a new Rv23 bridge or tunnel are therefore high.


----------



## italystf

^^ Aren't Bergen and Stavanger too distant and unconnected each other to be considered part of the same metropolitan area?


----------



## OnTheNorthRoad

Of course they are  Metropolitan area is a city definition (the most expansive). Bergen-Haugesund-Stavanger is obviously not one city. The most common way to define the borders of a metropolitan area is through commuter thresholds, but it might also reflect defined city regions.


----------



## Mathias Olsen

italystf said:


> ^^ Aren't Bergen and Stavanger too distant and unconnected each other to be considered part of the same metropolitan area?


Not in near future. In 2023, E39 Haugesund-Stavanger-Kristiansand motorway will be open. Bergen will follow later, when new bridges and/or tunnels on E39 motorway will be completed. Then, we can talk about an integrated Bergen-Stavanger agglomeration.


----------



## OnTheNorthRoad

No, we can't, they would still have several hours of travelling time. That doesn't cut it.


----------



## Mathias Olsen

OnTheNorthRoad said:


> Metropolitan area is a city definition (the most expansive). Bergen-Haugesund-Stavanger is obviously not one city. The most common way to define the borders of a metropolitan area is through commuter thresholds, but it might also reflect defined city regions.


Many definitions are possible about the density of city population. You can distinguish city, urban and metro. You can also have several definitions of an agglomeration. In descriptions of the population density of western Norway, there are valid arguments about common economical interest of Stavanger-Bergen with e.g. oil industry and agriculture. 

Bergen-Haugesund-Stavanger is ...... "The strong and dynamic south-west town belt (Read: agglomeration) from Bergen to Stavanger (that) will be more and more integrated in the near future due to road building (Read: E39 ferry-free motorway) and economic concentration and integration" (Jørgen Amdam, New Regions, Page 26, http://www.hivolda.no/neted/upload/attachment/site/group24/New_regions_Loven.ppt).

Note that there is intense air traffic between the cities. The ferry-free E39 in future will help to the unity between Bergen and Stavanger, to more sustainability in the area and faster connections.


----------



## Mathias Olsen

OnTheNorthRoad said:


> No, we can't, they would still have several hours of travelling time. That doesn't cut it.


Bergen city center - Stavanger city center will be not much more than 2 hours when the new bridges and tunnels are ready before the end of next decade. No extreme value for an agglomeration of (then) 0.8 million, or not? You should be aware about the big impact a motorway has on society. In 2023 there will be a big revolution when Haugesund will be connected with Stavanger and it will also reduce Bergen-Stavanger.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

Calling 800 k people within more than 2 hours an urban agglomoration is pretty far fetched, its not like anyone living in Stavanger would go to work in Bergen, or even Haugesund, every day. Otherwise I am in no doubt such a motorway between Bergen and Stavanger would strengthen the economy of the area, especially Bergen and Haugesund. However, politics is always about priorities and making the best investments first, and you probably have to wait a while before Haugesund-Os is completed.


----------



## Heico-M

My diagnosis: you guys might just as well discuss religion. :lol:


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

Or German beers?

In any case, I think population growth is a relevant parameter in this discussion. SSB predict 6 million in Norway already in 2030, the fastest +1 million growth ever in Norway:
https://www.ssb.no/en/befolkning/statistikker/folkfram/aar/2016-06-21









If you look at the immigration rates assumed the prediction does not appear particularly conservative.


----------



## Mathias Olsen

54°26′S 3°24′E;133586842 said:


> population growth is a relevant parameter in this discussion


True. It is an argument for more motorway construction. Big cities Oslo and Stavanger are favorites for most immigrants. That will put more weight on the balance to build more motorways. 
Together with the economical need for better export transport from the west coast, and the fact that compared with Europe, Norway has some work to do for motorway construction, we may expect something of the upcoming Motorway Plan the government promised.

Here my guess, outside already ongoing projects:

1. E39 Haugesund-Bergen after 2025
2. E134 Odda-Drammen after 2030
3. Motorway Oslo-Trondheim after 2030


----------



## ChrisZwolle

*Ryfylke Tunnel*

The Ryfylke Tunnel progress, as of 15 June. It's a twin-tube tunnel, but these schematics don't show it as such. I assume they're being dug / blasted at the same rate.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

*Fylkesvei 64, Molde*

Some photos of Fylkesvei 64 near Molde in Møre og Romsdal.

1. We're driving on Skålavegen, the road connection between the Skåla Peninsula and the city of Molde.

Fylkesvei 64 Molde-1 by European Roads, on Flickr

2. The Bolsøy Bridge shows in the distance.

Fylkesvei 64 Molde-2 by European Roads, on Flickr

3. The Bolsøy Bridge is 555 meters long and opened in 1991. It is toll-free since 2005.

Fylkesvei 64 Molde Bolsøy Bridge-3 by European Roads, on Flickr

4. The Fannefjord Tunnel is located 3 kilometers after the Bolsøy Bridge. The tunnel reaches 101 meters below sea level.

Fylkesvei 64 Molde Fannefjord Tunnel-4 by European Roads, on Flickr

5. The tunnel has steep grades, like many undersea tunnels. They don't like to build such steep tunnels any more, due to the fact that most tunnel fires occur in the small amount of steep tunnels.

Fylkesvei 64 Molde Fannefjord Tunnel-5 by European Roads, on Flickr

6. The Fannefjord is visible on the right. The city of Molde is behind it. The Fannefjord Tunnel also goes under the airport of Molde.

Fylkesvei 64 Molde Fannefjord Tunnel-6 by European Roads, on Flickr

7. North of Molde.

Fylkesvei 64 Molde-7 by European Roads, on Flickr

8. The Tussen Tunnel, opened in 1990 and toll-free since 2015.

Fylkesvei 64 Molde-8 by European Roads, on Flickr


----------



## Heico-M

ChrisZwolle said:


> 5. The tunnel has steep grades, like many undersea tunnels. They don't like to build such steep tunnels any more, due to the fact that most tunnel fires occur in the small amount of steep tunnels.
> 
> Fylkesvei 64 Molde Fannefjord Tunnel-5 by European Roads, on Flickr


I wonder why they use a variable sign to indicate the slope. There is nothing on the signage that ever varies ...


----------



## hammersklavier

54°26′S 3°24′E;133544796 said:


> Norway is also low on the statistics for fatalities per driven km, although not all countries are recording that number. Regardless, more motorways and other divided highways would undoubtedly reduce fatality numbers further.


Actually my point was kind of the opposite. Even if the per driven km rate is low, an expansion of roads such that they capture a significant proportion of intercity traffic can only make the rate go up, as -- even in the safest driving countries -- there is a minimal correlation between how much driving one does and the accident rate.

In other words, Norway's inadequate ground transportation infrastructure _itself_ plays a role in depressing the accident rate and so improving the perception of safety. This only works, however, because the Norwegians are wealthy enough that they can use other options.

Of course, this is also why per driven km is the most relevant metric for evaluating relative road safety, at least when the infrastructure is comparable.


Suburbanist said:


> Was it built for the sake of the houses, or was it a tunnel serving the hydro power plant that incidentally served the houses? Will the population of the hamlet grow to couple hundreds with better access?


I think I'll let you figure this out for yourself.


----------



## berlinwroclaw

hammersklavier said:


> Even if the per driven km rate is low, an expansion of roads such that they capture a significant proportion of intercity traffic can only make the rate go up


When you want to improve existing 1x2 roads you will get (like you said) significant proportion of intercity traffic that will make the rate go up.

Statistics show (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=133562957&postcount=3871) that a replacement of 1x2 roads by 2x2 motorways will reduce deadly accidents. This is a key argument to replace 1x2 roads by a motorway.

So, the only way to capture a significant proportion of intercity traffic and keeping low deadly accident rate per driven km is motorway construction. Like you said, Norway can afford this solution.


----------



## Heico-M

Cone on, guys, be realistic.

A full 2+2 motorway across the mountains is far too expensive in relation to the expected traffic volume, population growing or not. Period.

But even Sweden has good experience with 2+1 roads (aka "swedish motorways" ), i.e. 1+1 with alternating passing lanes. So why not do that in Norway, too?


----------



## berlinwroclaw

Heico-M said:


> A full 2+2 motorway across the mountains is far too expensive in relation to the expected traffic volume


How do you calculate the expected traffic volume? Note that the cry for sustainability will be louder every year and the extraordinary air-traffic will be limited by offering good alternatives. You can calculate that a move from air traffic to road traffic will give an extra of > 6000 AADT for the relation E134 Odda-Drammen. Oil will be over in 2040 and Bergen/Stavanger need good export infrastructure in 2030 with an alternative economy. The cry for a E134 motorway Odda-Drammen will be louder and louder. Travelling speed by car is the lowest in Europe, while Norway is rich. This motorway will come and will be in the new Motorway Plan 2017. The only question is: when? 



Heico-M said:


> But even Sweden has good experience with 2+1 roads (aka "swedish motorways" ), i.e. 1+1 with alternating passing lanes. So why not do that in Norway, too?


Very good suggestion ..... and realistic as well  For the time being we can implement a solution like on E6 Hamar-Lillehammer with grade separated 1+2 road.


*1+1 with alternating 1+2 passing lanes on E6 Hamar-Lillehammer*


----------



## Mathias Olsen

Heico-M said:


> Cone on, guys, be realistic.


Yes, being realistic is including the safety dimension. A motorway is safer than any a road with alternating passing lanes. On June 11, 2016, we had another head-on collision on the E39 Stavanger-Krisitansand in Bjerkreim, this time 6 people were involved. 










Safety was an important argument to upgrade E39 to Stavanger to motorway, without alternating passing lanes. How many accidents on long distance roads have to follow until there is a motorway? Bjerkreim has to wait for not less than 6 years until the safer motorway is ready and head-on collisions like this will be over.
https://www.nrk.no/rogaland/front-mot-front-pa-e39-1.12993363


----------



## ChrisZwolle

2+1 roads with grade-separation and a median barrier (cable barrier or otherwise) attain nearly the same safety level as a motorway, because it eliminates head-on collisions, crossover incidents and at-grade crashes. But at a lower cost. 

I think it's better to invest in a good cost-efficient 2+1 road across E134 than wait for a full-standard motorway that likely never comes.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

*Atlantic Ocean Road*

I filmed the Atlantic Ocean Road last week.


----------



## Mathias Olsen

ChrisZwolle said:


> 2+1 roads with grade-separation and a median barrier (cable barrier or otherwise)


Outside the speed, safety and capacity argument, in case of an accident all traffic of one direction is blocked on the 1-lane side of the alternating passing lane. They also cannot go back. In winter, a serious issue in Norway.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

^^ Yes, stranded trucks are already the main cause of closures on eg Rv 3 during winter, although there the road is significantly wider since the directions are not physically separated.



hammersklavier said:


> Actually my point was kind of the opposite. Even if the per driven km rate is low, an expansion of roads such that they capture a significant proportion of intercity traffic can only make the rate go up, as -- even in the safest driving countries -- there is a minimal correlation between how much driving one does and the accident rate.
> 
> In other words, Norway's inadequate ground transportation infrastructure _itself_ plays a role in depressing the accident rate and so improving the perception of safety. This only works, however, because the Norwegians are wealthy enough that they can use other options.
> 
> Of course, this is also why per driven km is the most relevant metric for evaluating relative road safety, at least when the infrastructure is comparable.
> 
> I think I'll let you figure this out for yourself.


You are missing my point. Yes, there is correlation between traffic volume and accident rates, but at least from recent Norwegian experience, this correlation is far outweighed by the discrete improvement of safety which a motorway represents. It is not like Norwegians are not driving today, either.



Heico-M said:


> Cone on, guys, be realistic.
> 
> A full 2+2 motorway across the mountains is far too expensive in relation to the expected traffic volume, population growing or not. Period.
> 
> But even Sweden has good experience with 2+1 roads (aka "swedish motorways" ), i.e. 1+1 with alternating passing lanes. So why not do that in Norway, too?


The difference between Norway and Sweden is that the latter historically has built very wide 2-lane highways (where driving was allowed on the shoulders to let others pass). These roads could be very inexpensively be converted to divided 2+1. In Norway, similar routes are narrow and winding. Hence, a new road in most cases have to be built anyway. According to the norms, a 2+1 is 14.5 meters wide (H5, 90 km/h, 6000-12000 AADT), whereas the narrowest motorway (H8, 100 or 110 km/h, < 20 000 AADT) is 20 m wide. Hence, the difference in width is in fact not that large, and for the foundation even less. There is also some differences in geometry requirements, but at least in my head, the increase in costs is far outweight by the increase of benefits in the case of eg Trondheim-Oslo when it comes to speed of travel, reliability (considering when the single lane is obstructed) and safety, especially if you have to rebuild the road anyway a few decades ahead (or if the curvature is wrong, build a whole new road again a few decades "down the road".) 

Remember also that for tunnels the 4 lane threshold is reach at lower AADT even with todays rules, actually at 8000 AADT for tunnels above 10 km. Tunnels above 10 km and with traffic above 4000 AADT shall also normally be built with separate emergency exits. which again lowers the marginal cost for a full second tube.


----------



## Ingenioren

Heico-M said:


> I wonder why they use a variable sign to indicate the slope. There is nothing on the signage that ever varies ...


Yes, it can be changed to tunnel closed. These tunnels get closed for example if a car has engine trouble inside.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

Or more regularly : Due to cleaning and other maintenance.


----------



## berlinwroclaw

ChrisZwolle said:


> I think it's better to invest in a good cost-efficient 2+1 road across E134 than wait for a full-standard motorway that likely never comes.


Norway's west coast has to survive in 2040 when the oil is over. The counties of Stavanger and Bergen will then have an estimated population of 1.2 million inhabitants. Economy has to switch from oil sector to agriculture, industry and business services and competive export connections are necessary for economic survival of the west coast. There are signals that the government is aware that the west coast needs competive road infrastructure between east and west.
Fact is that soon a 4 lane section at Drammen will be constructed.










and also a bypass at Kongsberg with 4 lane sections and 2 motorway interchanges.






Before 2023 there will be E134 motorway sections and other sections in half profile, no signs for a 2+1 end solution, but only signs for motorway end solution.


----------



## Ingenioren

It's not that far fetched, the current ntp recommends motorway untill Kongsberg, then 2+1 untill Notodden, but after the standard of southern section of E39 was switched to motorway i would not be surpriced by such a twist, however there is some politics getting in the way of the Haukeli - Bergen shortcut.


----------



## berlinwroclaw

Ingenioren said:


> but after the standard of southern section of E39 was switched to motorway i would not be surpriced by such a twist, however there is some politics getting in the way of the Haukeli - Bergen shortcut.


Some politics getting in the way may indeed be a showstopper for motorway sections in near future. However, when E134 Haukeli will get enough momentum from ex-airline passengers and cargo from trains, the traffic flow will increase more and more year after years because of the huge traffic potential. That will make finally possible upgrades to motorway standard before 2040.


----------



## Heico-M

I think that moving goods transport from rail to road is not a realistic scenario, is it? Quite on the contrary, more and more goods have to be transported by rail. In case of Bergen and Stavanger, railways are existing. 

I don't believe either, that air traffic will be moved to road traffic. Taking into account, that all mobility in Norway is supposed to be Emission-free, i.e. electric, it will in 2040 be more comfortable to go by e-plane from Bergen to Oslo than by e-car. 

Speking of e-mobility: I am looking forward to see the e-Hurtigruten one day. :lol:


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

^^ Electric airplanes will not be feasible in the foreseeable future due to the battery weight. Hydrogen is better, but the efficiency is very low.

At least Norway is capable of constructing tourist roads:


----------



## Heico-M

54°26′S 3°24′E;133635615 said:


> At least Norway is capable of constructing tourist roads:


 Being a Norway tourist, I appreciate that very much. :cheers:


----------



## ChrisZwolle

*Saltstraumen Bridge*

Does anyone know if there used to be a prior bridge across Saltstraumen (Fv. 17) south of Bodø? Norwegian Wikipedia doesn't mention it, the current bridge opened in 1978, and I don't think there was a complete lack of a connection before 1978, perhaps an older bridge or a ferry. I doubt if a ferry directly across Saltstraumen ever operated, but could there have been one across the Saltfjord to Bodø? The only other alternative is to drive all the way around the fjord via Rognan and Fauske.

Saltstraumen bru:


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

There have always been boats in Saltstraumen, both to carry people across and through and due to the irrestistible fishing. Of course, the locals know/knew to time their activities, and they also had a local boat variety that better could handle the whirlpools.

With regards to ferries, there were at least a ferry across in 1965 (well, actually a bit to the south of it), at which time there was no bridge. I am sure this continued until 1978 (check out the old map http://www.kartverket.no/historiske/gradteigtr/jpg300dpi/gradteigtr_k13_1965.jpg )


----------



## berlinwroclaw

Heico-M said:


> moving goods transport from rail to road is not a realistic scenario, is it?


I am not against goods transported by rail. But let the market mechanism decide, that’ s better for economy. IMO it will be good to stimulate bulk cargo, dangerous chemicals and containers via railways. But it is not only a top-down case, also the people need some freedom how to transport.



Heico-M said:


> more and more goods have to be transported by rail.


Much cargo needs quick delivery for acceptable costs. Trucks and vans are capable to meet those requirements in online market society. Decision makers are well aware that forcing more East - West cargo via rail will increase the costs of living in Bergen-Haugesund-Stavanger, with negative impact on economy. They should look at all aspects what is good for society.










image @Ingenioren 
We can see the preference for much cargo transport to motorways. Check it out: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=133416103&postcount=3757
E134 motorway via Haukeli will facilitate higher netto social and economic benefits within cargo transport.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

54°26′S 3°24′E;133644100 said:


> With regards to ferries, there were at least a ferry across in 1965 (well, actually a bit to the south of it), at which time there was no bridge. I am sure this continued until 1978 (check out the old map http://www.kartverket.no/historiske/gradteigtr/jpg300dpi/gradteigtr_k13_1965.jpg )


Thanks, great map  There appear to be some old routes leading to the water at the location of the ferries on that map. 

Is the map Swedish or did they switch from ö t ø at some point after 1965?

It's incredible how impractical driving was in Norway until relatively recently (compared to other European countries). Very narrow roads, few bridges and a lot of small ferries. Fylkesvei 17 is still somewhat impractical due to the number of remaining ferries (6). Of course E6 is the main road for north-south traffic and likely has always been.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

"ö" was used more in Norway before, at least in technical writing. The Germans produced quite a lot maps during the WW2 which were sold after the war, but "ö" and "Ö" can also be found on Norwegian produced maps both before and after the war. 

The main "road" N-S in Northern Norway has been the sea for most of our history. The boat traffic has on the other hand actually been quite significant due to the seasonal rich cod fisheries of Lofoten which peak during winter.

It was possible to travel by car through Nordland county for the first time (and with more ferries than today), as late as 1941. The German occupants ordered, and constructed, several improvements of the road during WWII, eg the first road across Korgenfjellet, but at a great expense of lives of mostly Yugoslav POWs. In the beginning, the road was not open throughout the winter, and Saltfjellet become winter-open as late as 1968. Wikipedia actually has two articles on the history of E6 in Nordland, but the first general one only in Norwegian, the second one ("blood road") also has a short German version (it is actually a bit strange if there is no Balkan version on this): 

https://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europavei_6'_historie_i_Nordland
https://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blodveien / https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blutweg


----------



## berlinwroclaw

ChrisZwolle said:


> It's incredible how impractical driving was in Norway until relatively recently (compared to other European countries).


That was also my experience when I entered for the first time this beautiful and charming country Norway. All went fine, till I passed Lillehammer...... on the way to Geiranger the road became more and more challenging and on the way to the valley I had to use many learned lessons from the Alps ... 
When Norway will realise that tourism will be stimulated by more European standard roads to tourist attractions I will do better Norway promotion.....


----------



## Heico-M

berlinwroclaw said:


> That was also my experience when I entered for the first time this beautiful and charming country Norway. All went fine, till I passed Lillehammer...... on the way to Geiranger the road became more and more challenging and on the way to the valley I had to use many learned lessons from the Alps ...
> When Norway will realise that tourism will be stimulated by more European standard roads to tourist attractions I will do better Norway promotion.....


Objection. These kinds of "adventurous" roads used to be an attraction for "continental" tourists. From a tourists point of view, it is sad that more and more of these roads disappear or are already gone. Of course, residents need quick and safe roads to get from A to B. But from a tourist's point of view, it is sad. Although some of these roads are being preserved now. 

Admittedly, there was a lack of touristic infrastructure until not many years ago. There has been done some efforts to be able to deal with the increasing number of tourists (Viewpoints, rest areas etc.) But still, I hope that Norway will never become "European Standard" by means of tourism. I hope they will find their own way. Otherwise a lot of originality will be lost. In other words: don't make it just another Disneyland. Thanks.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Norway is very large, so the tourist crowds are contained in small areas. For example there were busloads of tourists going up the roads on either side of Geiranger, but drive 15 kilometers and you're alone again. 

These viewing points are amazing. However, after driving through all that spectaculair scenery for a few days, you'll become a bit numb about it. Every bend in the road displays yet another scenic view, but after hours and days of driving around it somehow becomes too much to process.


----------



## cinxxx

ChrisZwolle said:


> These viewing points are amazing. However, after driving through all that spectaculair scenery for a few days, you'll become a bit numb about it. Every bend in the road displays yet another scenic view, but after hours and days of driving around it somehow becomes too much to process.


I was thinking about this too. But I mixed my trip with visiting cities.
I think this is a good thing to do to not get "bored" on a trip, mix things up


----------



## MattiG

Heico-M said:


> Objection. These kinds of "adventurous" roads used to be an attraction for "continental" tourists. From a tourists point of view, it is sad that more and more of these roads disappear or are already gone. Of course, residents need quick and safe roads to get from A to B. But from a tourist's point of view, it is sad. Although some of these roads are being preserved now.


Agree. Most tourists visiting Norway are interested in scenic views, not motorways. As a rule of thumb, the more windy and narrow the road is the better tourist experience it provides. For example, the most interesting parts on E134 are those old roads in Dysrkar and Seljestad not being E134, and bypassing the long tunnels.


----------



## Mathias Olsen

Heico-M said:


> I don't believe either, that air traffic will be moved to road traffic.


To be honest, today I also should go by airline. The reality in 2016 is that it takes only 3,5 hours by plane from Bergen city center to Oslo city center and costs are NOK 2000, while a car trip over E134 Haukeli takes 8 hours. That the costs are less when you have a Tesla, home brew electric or budget electricity doesn’ t compensate for me. Just check it out on online route planners. Despite the waiting time at the airports with check in and check out till near future, all will still prefer the airline.










But look at the signs on the wall. The East – West road will be shorter and faster every year. Every year you will see traveling reductions. Finally, somewhere before 2043, Bergen-Oslo will be one day 3, 5 hours – as fast a by plane. It doesn’ t need so much phantasy that for many people the benefits of car driving will be better than going by plane. Just look at similar inter city connections in the Nordic. The electric car adds silence, comfort, privacy, freedom and joy to the trip.










When current road upgrade plans on the east –west road are completed we may see already next decade this mass shift from airlines to car.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

Mathias Olsen said:


> To be honest, today I also should go by airline. The reality in 2016 is that it takes only 3,5 hours by plane from Bergen city center to Oslo city center and costs are NOK 2000, while a car trip over E134 Haukeli takes 8 hours. T


Without luggage you usually also can go from home to home, eg allow local PT, in addition within 3.5 hours.

I am not sure if 2000 is one way or roundtrip. One-way I usually get signicantly below 2000 on domestic bussiness/impulsive flights. On private flights where you can plan ahead the price is much lower also on roundtrip tickets. Of course there is local travel charges in addition, but 2000 is expensive.

As mentioned before, there are other roads than Oslo-Bergen that has to be improved in this country. No need to rant about it in every post.


----------



## Mathias Olsen

54°26′S 3°24′E;133650013 said:


> Without luggage you usually also can go from home to home, eg allow local PT, in addition within 3.5 hours.


Your alternative local PT calculation is welcome, here is my calculation, done with online services, without waiting time for delayed plane, bus and train:
Bergen city (Vaskerelvsmauet) - Bergen airport: 12 minutes walking + 32 minutes bus trip + 5 minutes average waiting time + 1 hour airport check in
Oslo Gardermoen – Bergen airport: 50 minutes
Oslo Gardermoen airport - Oslo S – Oslo (Lybekkergata): 30 minutes airport check out + 22 minutes + walking time 6 minutes
Total traveling time = 3 hours 37 minutes.



54°26′S 3°24′E;133650013 said:


> I am not sure if 2000 is one way or roundtrip. One-way I usually get signicantly below 2000 on domestic bussiness/impulsive flights.


2000 is the total sum, shuttle bus in Bergen: 100; train in Oslo: 150; single ticket 1750, an average. 



54°26′S 3°24′E;133650013 said:


> there are other roads than Oslo-Bergen that has to be improved in this country.


True, but isn't Bergen/Haugesund/Stavanger – Oslo, or West-East the backbone of the Norwegian transport structure? Isn't it more than any other combination together in Norway? Isn’t it true that also that need to be considered? Remember that there is also profit for Trondheim with such an improved connection, because also Bergen/Haugesund/Stavanger – Tromsø/Trondheim/ Ålesund will be faster via Oslo.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

*E6 Hålogaland Bridge*

The first of four saddles has been lifted on top of the Hålogaland Bridge tower. The cables will run across it. Each saddle weighs 20 tons.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

Mathias Olsen said:


> Your alternative local PT calculation is welcome, here is my calculation, done with online services, without waiting time for delayed plane, bus and train:
> Bergen city (Vaskerelvsmauet) - Bergen airport: 12 minutes walking + 32 minutes bus trip + 5 minutes average waiting time + 1 hour airport check in
> Oslo Gardermoen – Bergen airport: 50 minutes
> Oslo Gardermoen airport - Oslo S – Oslo (Lybekkergata): 30 minutes airport check out + 22 minutes + walking time 6 minutes
> Total traveling time = 3 hours 37 minutes.
> 
> 
> 
> 2000 is the total sum, shuttle bus in Bergen: 100; train in Oslo: 150; single ticket 1750, an average.


OK, your hour for check-in and 50 minutes to get on the train more than explains the difference. Most domestic travels are without baggage, in which case this delay at least can be cut in half. I do not know the local details of Bergen well enough, but I will argue that nothing is more Oslo city center than Oslo S. Again, 1750 is far above what I normally pay even on business travel. 


Mathias Olsen said:


> True, but isn't Bergen/Haugesund/Stavanger – Oslo, or West-East the backbone of the Norwegian transport structure? Isn't it more than any other combination together in Norway? Isn’t it true that also that need to be considered? Remember that there is also profit for Trondheim with such an improved connection, because also Bergen/Haugesund/Stavanger – Tromsø/Trondheim/ Ålesund will be faster via Oslo.


No, E134 is and will never be more than a limb, actually. Important, but not more than the real backbone (E6, irrespective if parts are rerouted to Rv 3 or not ) and not even close to being the most important limb, that would be E18. Sure, if we agree with yours and berlinwroclaw's assumption that all people of Rogaland and Hordaland will use E134 (which in fact is quite far fetched if you look at the map), almost 1 M people will have its needs for travel to Oslo served by this road. For most of the remaining 4.2 M people in Norway, however, this road is not and will never be very important. Even for people in Hordaland and Rogaland, the most important route ahead most likely will be E39 southward. 

The most important routes to improve first are those that are so underdimensioned that they are regularly clogged and are leading to many deaths, such as eg. E18, E134 to Drammen - Kongsberg, E14 to Kongsvinger, Rv 3 Stange-Rena, rv 25 Hamar - Elverum, E6 Stange to Lillehammer and again Ulsberg - Steinkjer, and sections of E39. 

Then we should start to complete the rest of the national network, considering cost /benefit ratio. E134 would certainly be up there somewhere, together with many other routes. If we for simplicity only consider Bergen - Oslo vs Trondheim - Oslo, it seems obvious to me that E134 should be behind in the queue (if we need one), due to E134's high cost. Remember that Trondheim - Oslo for most of the route has significantly higher, and never lower, traffic than the combination of various routes which can be said to end up in Bergen or Haugesund today. Remember that Trondheim - Oslo has a huge catchment area, as it in fact serves as a backbone with many connecting “limbs”. Unlike E134, where eg Hordaland also has an alternative route via E134, the E6/Rv3 is also the only relevant link to the world for great parts of the country. Due geography, it is also likely that the east-west traffic will continue to be more distributed than south - north. This, and the fact that E134 mostly passes through sparsely populated areas, will ensure that E6 (or Rv3, whatever is developed) will continue to have higher average traffic than E134.


----------



## Mathias Olsen

Thanks for your review of my PT calculations  



54°26′S 3°24′E;133672144 said:


> to complete the rest of the national network, considering cost /benefit ratio.


Right. The netto social benefits of E134 Bergen-Oslo are 19 billion, according to respected consulting companies. What are the netto social benefits of Trondheim-Oslo or any other national road infrastructure project? When we know those facts, we may discuss on a less subjective way. Personally, I would like to see a motorway Trondheim-Oslo as soon as possible, but the government will look at a national perspective.



54°26′S 3°24′E;133672144 said:


> Even for people in Hordaland and Rogaland, the most important route ahead most likely will be E39 southward.


You are right for the near future. E39 motorway Stavanger-Kristiansand will be ready in 2023. It will take 80 minutes, so Stavanger-Oslo via Kristiansand will be 5 hours, that is more than 3 hours faster than with E134 in 2016. But E134 is in 2016 already shorter than via Kristiansand. Planned improvements can cut the distance with 92 km and reduce the time to 3,5 hours. After 2023, every year the balance E39-E134 will change in advantage of the E134 because of ongoing improvements.


----------



## MattiG

54°26′S 3°24′E;133672144 said:


> Then we should start to complete the rest of the national network, considering cost /benefit ratio.


In theory, yes.

But anyone having involved in cost/benefit ratio calculations, like me, know that such calculations are subject to easy manipulation. In addition, they typically are pretty sensitive to small changes in input parameters and weighing. I am sure that for each four competing choices (Oslo-Bergen over E134, Rv7 and E16, and Oslo-Trondheim) there will be calculations showing the best score.

In addition, the C/B ratio in only one input item to the decision making. In every country such investments are agreed at the political layer. The politicians might even just ignore the C/B calculations, because they also know that the calculations may be manipulated.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

Yes, I know. Not many years ago we had quite a few (mostly privately ordered, like the Haukeli study above) studies by reputed organizations concluding that high speed trains would be a resounding economic success in Norway. I also actually see this very well in my own field. But in any case, I think cost /benefit should be a goal, but what "benefit" means should be up to the politicians to decide, and costs are often very hard to predict. In Norway, more than most countries, I believe, politicians first at least historically has manipulated also the quantitative parameters, by eg setting high discount rates and/or low traffic growth rates, and keep meddling also after the criteria have been defined by. Certain areas of the country are incredibly much better at attracting road funding than others....

In any case, I in fact beleive that most of the roads suggested by campaigns with a national perspective like "Bedrevei.no" would be economical beneficial for the country, including a Haukeli motorway with a Bergen arm, but it is far from the only, or currently, most important road project, and bringing it up in every post here is futile and must be even more irritating for foreigners that might visit the thread to learn something...


----------



## Suburbanist

With that much money around, making E16 completely ferry-free should be a priority.


----------



## MattiG

Suburbanist said:


> With that much money around, making E16 completely ferry-free should be a priority.


 Absolutely! E01, too.


----------



## italystf

I think Suburbanist intended to write E6 instead of E16. E6 crosses a fjord with a ferry between Bodo and Narvik.


----------



## Suburbanist

Sorry, I meant E6, that was a typo.

There is a fjord crossing, and also two long detours around fjords further north.


----------



## Mathias Olsen

Heico-M said:


> - A tunnel project from Skåre to Breidalen will compete with Lærdalstunnelen and will remove the winter problem of having to cross Strynefjellet. That is ambitious.


Thanks for the tunnel update. It is ambitious, but good for Norway.




Heico-M said:


> - But what in the world are tourists supposed to do in Geiranger in winter ???












Christmas time is a wonderful time of the year and one of the busiest times for tourism. Geiranger hotels are already sold out for 2017. Do you know a Norwegian myth says that the home of the Devil is near Geiranger fjord? It is in a hole where no light can enter? Why not visiting Geiranger in winter to get the ultimate experience? There is a church in Geiranger to get the true Christmas message.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

*Fylkesvei 55, Sognefjellet, part II*

Part II of the drive across Sognefjellet. It's surrounded by mountains in the 2000+ meter range. Very scenic.


Fylkesvei 55 Sognefjellet-16 by European Roads, on Flickr


Fylkesvei 55 Sognefjellet-17 by European Roads, on Flickr


Fylkesvei 55 Sognefjellet-18 by European Roads, on Flickr


Fylkesvei 55 Sognefjellet-19 by European Roads, on Flickr


Fylkesvei 55 Sognefjellet-20 by European Roads, on Flickr


Fylkesvei 55 Sognefjellet-21 by European Roads, on Flickr


Fylkesvei 55 Sognefjellet-22 by European Roads, on Flickr


Fylkesvei 55 Sognefjellet-23 by European Roads, on Flickr


Fylkesvei 55 Sognefjellet-24 by European Roads, on Flickr


Fylkesvei 55 Sognefjellet-25 by European Roads, on Flickr


----------



## MattiG

Suburbanist said:


> Sorry, I meant E6, that was a typo.
> 
> There is a fjord crossing, and also two long detours around fjords further north.


The Bognes-Skarberget ferry will survive for decades. The fjord is deep (600+meters) and wide (3000+ meters) and the AADT is low, 800.

There has been activities to find alternatives. All of them are about long tunnels and bridges crossing a deserted area in the middle of nothing. It would be a job to create a business case to support building a ferry-free route.

The fastest routes between the southern and northern Norway go via Sweden and Finland.

There is one additional aspect to consider: The proposed alternatives are located in the area where Norway is narrowest: a few kilometers. The defense forces may want to keep the masses of people away,


----------



## Suburbanist

MattiG said:


> The Bognes-Skarberget ferry will survive for decades. The fjord is deep (600+meters) and wide (3000+ meters) and the AADT is low, 800.
> 
> There has been activities to find alternatives. All of them are about long tunnels and bridges crossing a deserted area in the middle of nothing. It would be a job to create a business case to support building a ferry-free route.
> 
> The fastest routes between the southern and northern Norway go via Sweden and Finland.
> 
> There is one additional aspect to consider: The proposed alternatives are located in the area where Norway is narrowest: a few kilometers. The defense forces may want to keep the masses of people away,


A key problem is that the biggest population centers out there are way out there in the islands/peninsulas, instead of on the mainland. Bødo, Trømso, Hammerfest are all located outside the core strip of land, so the half fish-bone pattern of roads end up making distances longer. 

----------------
As for the narrow territory, it is not like Sweden is some sort of menacing power, are they?

I read somewhere foreigners are strongly discouraged to travel out in the woods south or east of Kirkenes, for risks of accidentally crossing the Russian border and creating some sort of incident... not sure if truth or not.


----------



## Stafangr

Suburbanist said:


> I read somewhere foreigners are strongly discouraged to travel out in the woods south or east of Kirkenes, for risks of accidentally crossing the Russian border and creating some sort of incident... not sure if truth or not.


I believe that's because there are still undetonated munitions left in those woods. From WWII and the cold war.


----------



## italystf

Suburbanist said:


> A key problem is that the biggest population centers out there are way out there in the islands/peninsulas, instead of on the mainland. Bødo, Trømso, Hammerfest are all located outside the core strip of land, so the half fish-bone pattern of roads end up making distances longer.
> 
> ----------------
> As for the narrow territory, *it is not like Sweden is some sort of menacing power, are they?
> *
> I read somewhere foreigners are strongly discouraged to travel out in the woods south or east of Kirkenes, for risks of accidentally crossing the Russian border and creating some sort of incident... not sure if truth or not.


The only problem I can think it's smuggling. Norway isn't in EU while Sweden is, so freight between the two countries has to pass through custom controls.
As for the Norwegian-Russian border, it's not strictly controlled as the Finnish-Russian border (that is entirely fenced and you need permits also to approach it, not only to cross it), so it's used by some asylum seekers to enter Schengen area illegally.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

NRK reports that they are going to spend more money to clear overgrown bushes and trees along fjords to preserve the views. In many cases, overgrown bushes blocks more and more of the view on the landscape, which is detrimental to tourism. We've discussed this issue recently in this thread.


----------



## Stafangr

italystf said:


> The only problem I can think it's smuggling. Norway isn't in EU while Sweden is, so freight between the two countries has to pass through custom controls.
> As for the Norwegian-Russian border, it's not strictly controlled as the Finnish-Russian border (that is entirely fenced and you need permits also to approach it, not only to cross it), so it's used by some asylum seekers to enter Schengen area illegally.


Norway is a member of EFTA, the EEA, and the Schengen-area. Smuggling isn't the issue. The issue is sovereignty; Norway is a member of NATO, Sweden isn't. Norway wouldn't look as thrustworthy if our defence relied on a non-NATO country.


----------



## MattiG

Suburbanist said:


> As for the narrow territory, it is not like Sweden is some sort of menacing power, are they?


Norwegians remember from the WWII that the threat does not necessarily come from the east.


----------



## Ingenioren

italystf said:


> As for the Norwegian-Russian border, it's not strictly controlled as the Finnish-Russian border (that is entirely fenced and you need permits also to approach it, not only to cross it), so it's used by some asylum seekers to enter Schengen area illegally.


Well - no, it's not fenced on the Norwegian side, but it is on the "border zone" a 20 km inside russian territory. There is also a second checkpoint on the road even further inside Russia. So as the Fsb has a good control on what happends, since the distance from anywhere to this border is so massive it would take a lot of effort to get there without being noticed. What the deal was with the bike refugees - were being let trough untill Norway made a deal with Russia about it. On the Norwegian side there are some information signs everywhere and the border is marked by "border street" with the rather easy to spot yellow+red poles so it's still easy to see the border-line if you are in the forrest.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

*E6 Leirfjord Bridge*

The plans for the E6 upgrade north of Fauske in Nordland have been published. It includes a large suspension bridge across the Leirfjord.

The bridge has a main span of 760 meters, which by the time of opening, would be the 4th or 5th longest in Norway (depending on the Julsund Bridge opening).

Construction could start by 2018.

A schematic of the Leirfjord Bridge:


----------



## ChrisZwolle

*E39 Rogfast*

The Rogfast project, also known as the Boknafjord Tunnel entails the construction of a 26,570 meter long undersea tunnel north of Stavanger. It's by far the largest road tunneling project in Europe ever, even dwarfing the Stockholm Bypass and Femern Belt Tunnel, not to mention the Gotthard or Gran Sasso Tunnels.

Rogfast will create a fixed link across the Boknafjord and a spiral side tunnel to the island of Kvitsøy. It will be a motorway with a 110 km/h speed limit. The tunnel goes 392 meters below sea level, so will both be the longest and deepest road tunnel in the world.

A map and vertical profile (bottom):









The tube has a T10.5 profile, meaning a full standard motorway tube. The speed limit will be 110 km/h.









The tunnel will be built with 3 major tunnel contracts, which will be built similtaneously. Contract north, south and Kvitsøy. This graph below shows the construction schedule (40 meters per week).
The red lines indicate the blasting process. The tunnel will be dug from 3 locations, the center red line indicate the central segment from Kvitsøy, which later branches into both directions, eventually connecting with north and south. 

As you can see, construction is planned to start early 2017 and blasting continuing into mid-2021. Road, roof and wall projects (blue, yellow, green) will start in late 2019 and follow the tunnel progress. The tunnel installations (gray) will be done after that, ending in 2023.









South tunnel portal (Harstadtkryss)









Kvitsøy tunnel portal. The tunnel to Kvitsøy is a spiral tunnel, it has to gain nearly 300 meters in altitude.









The scheme for the underground diamond interchange to Kvitsøy. It will be located approximately 280 meters below sea level.









Vertical profile of Kvitsøy, showing the spiral tunnel and ventilation channels.









Needless to say, this is a huge and groundbreaking project.


----------



## devo

IMOH, they should have blasted a giant hall at the intersection, creating a fake "outdoor" environment (with "sunlight" and all) and a regular intersection with bridge and so on, including a rest area for tourists. Maybe a restaurant?

Expensive? Sure. Safe with a rest area? Not necessarily. Ridiculous? Yes! Feasible? NO! 
Which is why it should have been done.


----------



## Ingenioren

For the record i think it is rather spectacular that the speed limit will be 110. For comparison if you drive trough Luxembourg - there you are going 130+ and suddenly it drops to freaking 90 for a 100m long tunnel. Atleast we're not afraid of tunnels - but makes it hard to justify the 110/100/90 variations elsewhere on the network, no?

Edit: Oh, and isn't the Oslofjordtunnel still being planned for 70 limit even when it's twinned?


----------



## italystf

Ingenioren said:


> For the record i think it is rather spectacular that the speed limit will be 110. For comparison if you drive trough Luxembourg - there you are going 130+ and suddenly it drops to freaking 90 for a 100m long tunnel. Atleast we're not afraid of tunnels - but makes it hard to justify the 110/100/90 variations elsewhere on the network, no?
> 
> Edit: Oh, and isn't the Oslofjordtunnel still being planned for 70 limit even when it's twinned?


Italian motorway tunnels have 130kph speed limit (like the rest of the motorway), unless a lower speed limit is signposted.

The Rogfast project is extremely impressive. I wonder if it will be the first underwater interchange ever built in the world. Interchanges within tunnels are rare but there are a few around (Norra Lanken in Stockholm, SS36 in Lecco, Italy and few others), but I'm not aware of any underwater junction.


----------



## devo

Ingenioren said:


> [...]
> 
> Edit: Oh, and isn't the Oslofjordtunnel still being planned for 70 limit even when it's twinned?


Isn't this because of its ridiculous inclines of 7%? It should never have been built.
I think a bridge or floating tunnel is a better option.


----------



## Ingenioren

The Leirfjord bridge in it's landscape:


----------



## ChrisZwolle

*E16 Valdres*

A 735 million NOK / € 79 million contract has been signed with Skanska to reconstruct an 11.1 kilometer segment of E16 in the Valdres area, between Bagn and Bjørgo. The project includes a 4.3 kilometer tunnel near Bagn.

http://www.vegvesen.no/om+statens+v...ion+Øst/skanska-skal-bygge-ny-e16-bagn-bjørgo

Also, the collapsed Skjeggestad Bridge on E18 near Holmestrand reopened to traffic today after 9 months of construction. It opened with one lane today to handle holiday traffic, 2 lanes will be open by Monday. 

http://www.vegvesen.no/Europaveg/e1...kiv/trafikk-i-ett-felt-på-e18-skjeggestad-bru


----------



## berlinwroclaw

ElviS77 said:


> Of course it can. Many countries have 100 km/h or higher as the speed limit on undivided 2-lane highways. That is unlikely to happen in Norway


True. Deadly collisions, such as here on 1x2 E134 Notodden-Kongsberg are dramatic in Norway.










Safety standards are critical in Norway. They want to be at the top 10 of Europe, if not the best. 



ElviS77 said:


> raising the speed limit on divided rural 1+1 and 2+1 expressways from 90 to 100 km/h is not beyond reason even in this country...


Ever been on E134 Haugesund-Odda? 










You will be confronted with such a "divided rural 1+1", when you follow a tiring slow truck of 80 km/h or less. This doesn't meet the requirement of a speed of 100 km/h and also 2+1 roads cannot meet this requirement.

The only option to meet this requirement of a 100 km/h speed and the safety standard of Norway is a motorway.


----------



## Erikツ

In Sweden we have roads with a limit of 100km/h like this one...








E45, google maps


----------



## riiga

^^ They used to have 110 even.


----------



## Mathias Olsen

ElviS77 said:


> The Haugesund arm may again become the rv 11, but since the road administration people have a thing for E routes, it will probably become an arm of the E16 or possibly retain the E134 number (thus making the Hemsedal road the E138 or something...).


Another suggestion may be adding the road number E138 for Bergen-Odda-Drammen West – Lierdiagonal – Rv23 - E18. The existing E134 Haugesund-Drammen South will stay in that case, the importance for the arm to Haugesund will increase after completion of E39 motorway Stavanger-Haugesund. From Odda till Drammen West there will be a double number: E134 + E138, not unusual in many countries and appropriate for this East-West corridor. 

This will cover a latent desire to label Rv23/Ring4 South (Oslofjordtunnel or bridge) with an E number and puts more focus on improved export and tourist connection for Bergen.


----------



## ElviS77

^^

Sensible ideas, absolutely, but in my head the main Oslo-Bergen link will get the two-digit E number. That is if they ever make up their mind about the "MAIN" part, of course... I have a stronger and stronger feeling that regional differences will kick in once more, and we'll end up with three or possibly even four reasonably upgraded links. I'm fairly certain the Haukeli link will be prioritized, but I'm not so sure about the thing that is needed to make it the obvious Oslo-Bergen road: a new Røldal-Bergen road with several long tunnels and a new Hardangerfjord bridge. That'll be expensive...


----------



## ElviS77

berlinwroclaw said:


> The only option to meet this requirement of a 100 km/h speed and the safety standard of Norway is a motorway.


It is important to differenciate between opinion and fact. The above is an opinion, and one that many knowledgeable Norwegian, Scandinavian and other road geeks clearly would disagree with. More importantly, Norwegian ministers - i.e. the people who actually have a say in this matter - also disagree. They mainly look to Sweden, where there are thousands of kms of divided 1+1/2+1 highways/expressways that work really well. Generally, the speed limits on such roads are 90, 100 or 110 km/h. We are capable of replicating this west of the border as well.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

berlinwroclaw said:


> Safety standards are critical in Norway. They want to be at the top 10 of Europe, if not the best.


Mission accomplished!

Norway had the lowest fatality rate in Europe / the world in 2015.


----------



## berlinwroclaw

ElviS77 said:


> It is important to differenciate between opinion and fact. The above is an opinion, and one that many knowledgeable Norwegian, Scandinavian and other road geeks clearly would disagree with. More importantly, Norwegian ministers - i.e. the people who actually have a say in this matter - also disagree. They mainly look to Sweden


It is important to differenciate between opinion and fact. The above is an opinion, and one that many knowledgeable Norwegian, Scandinavian and other road geeks clearly would disagree with. More importantly, 
Norwegian ministers - i.e. the people who actually have a say in this matter - also disagree. They mainly look to Sweden

They have the right to disagree with a feasibility study of the most respected expert on social economy of the Nordic and some consulting companies, respected by the government. Of course they may come with other solutions, based on own experiences and views. However they are also responsible for the governance in Norway in a changing economy when oil stops. The issue of improvement of road infrastructure from East to West has been discussed and will be discussed at deep level, both in the government and in the media in Norway. There are members in the Norwegian government who look at Albania. 



ElviS77 said:


> where there are thousands of kms of divided 1+1/2+1 highways/expressways that work really well. Generally, the speed limits on such roads are 90, 100 or 110 km/h. We are capable of replicating this west of the border as well.


Statistics show that the consequence will be higher casualties and more loss for economy because of slower connections. Do you think the Norwegian decision makers are willing to make such a sacrifice to safety and economy?
A bad decision maker won’t be elected next time. Norwegian newspapers are frequently showing collisions and delays on such roads, such as here on 1+1 road E134 at Vestfossen : 










We live in an information society. Media also show the perspective of Norway’s future. The only solution is to construct a motorway, not in steps, because this will be more expensive but immediately. And yes: case studies worldwide show that this is a success story for greater benefits of society.


----------



## riiga

berlinwroclaw said:


> Statistics show that the consequence will be higher casualties and more loss for economy because of slower connections.


1+1, 2+1 and 2+2 roads have casuality rates on par with motorways since both are divided highways. A 2+1 road would be more than enough to handle the AADT and wouldn't hurt the economy a bit.


----------



## ElviS77

berlinwroclaw said:


> Media also show the perspective of Norway’s future. The only solution is to construct a motorway, not in steps, because this will be more expensive but immediately. And yes: case studies worldwide show that this is a success story for greater benefits of society.


Ok, I'll bite. The thing is, that if you want to discuss - with any hint of credibility - Norwegian infrastructure politics, future possibilities and likely development with, you actually need to know what you are talking about, not just post random internet images, studies and stories, repeat arguments that have been refuted by reputable commentators or make bold statements about the only way forward for Norway. Certainly, there are different opinions about how much motorways we actually need in Norway (even on this site), but that's not the main point. The main point is linked to the following: 1. Politics, national and regional. 2. Demographics. 3. Geography. 4. Actual requirements, traffic volumes.

From the top:

1. Norwegian politics are fairly complicated. First of all, we are a consensus-driven society, meaning that most vital political decisions are made with the support of the majority supporting the government, but even including the opposition. I've mentioned this before, and it's really important if you want to understand anything about Norway. Second, infrastructure isn't that important to most voters, certainly not national infrastructure. Locally, road improvements, tolls, new tunnels or bridges or public transport improvements may cause a stir, but on a national level? Not so much. Third, local politicians have a stronger influence over political decisions than in most Western democracies. Forth, we have decided that our long-term aim is to get more cargo transport from roads to rail and sea. This development is slow: our railroads require a massive upgrade, and even though there are deepwater ports in abundance along the coast, they also need to be prepared for a very different future. Fifth, even though Norway is a rich country, there are many things to spend our money on, not just roads. Sixth, environmental concerns. These include both local, national and international issues and commitments.

2. Norway is a fairly large, but sparsely populated country, but with some 40% of the population living in and around the Oslo area. There are a few other reasonably sized urban areas - Bergen, Stavanger-Sandnes, Trondheim - but they aren't that big. In addition, the rest of the population mainly live along the coast, particularly along the southern coast. This has also been stated before, but the implications are clearly not understood: whereas it does make sense to build a Oslo-Kristiansand-Stavanger(-Bergen), a motorway through the mountains is a far more dubious proposition. Along ~250 kms of the proposed E134 Oslo-Bergen link (between Kongsberg and Bergen), the grand population total of *all *municipalities within a reasonable driving distance (2 hours north or south) of the corridor is less than 50,000. In addition, for people living along the alternative corridors through Hallingdal and Valdres and in Sogn and Fjordane, such a motorway would not only be useless, but counterproductive. There is only a finite amount of money to spend on roads, even in Norway, and we do need roads not just between Oslo and Bergen. Comparing Norway to Slovakia, for instance, is beyond ridiculous for many reasons, not least because an east-west motorway there actually benefits the majority of the country. Not so here. 

3. Our geography makes infrastructure construction challenging, time-consuming and expensive. This is further complicated by the fact that we need links to many different places, not just between the major cities. Quite a lot of our GDP comes from places away from the main urban centres. In addition, we are very proud of our nature, and we don't necessarily believe that motorways criscrossing our prime real estate is a sensible idea...

4. Depending on how one looks at it, we have 700-2000+ kms of road where motorways would make sense. The higher estimate would include Oslo-Stavanger-Bergen, Oslo-Trondheim-Steinkjer, Oslo-Svinesund, Oslo-Ørje plus some ring roads, links like Oslo-Gjøvik, Oslo-Hønefoss, Oslo-Kongsberg, Bergen-Voss, Trondheim-Orkanger, Kristiansund-Molde-Ålesund, and a few shorter sections around some towns and cities. However, there are many more thousands of kms of main roads that require urgent attention all over the country. Making those into 2+1, 1+1 or decent 2-lane highways is perhaps even more important than building motorways, and it doesn't come free. Avalanches and rockfalls are a constant threat on many local and regional roads, often the only viable solution is to build tunnels. Add to that all the county and local roads that are in dire straits with for instance brigdes which must be replaced and pavement repaired or completely redone, one sees a far more complex situation that needs attention in order to make the country work optimally. 

In short, flights of fancy aren't the Norwegian way. We know that we have to compromise to make society work. Sometimes, the compromises turn out to be mistakes - the short-term planning of the 70s, 80s and 90s is a prime example. We have been moving away from that kind of thinking for some time now, but that doesn't mean we'll start building motorways everywhere.


----------



## Heico-M

Elvis77 kay:kay:kay:


----------



## berlinwroclaw

ElviS77 said:


> The main point is linked to the following: 1. Politics, national and regional. 2. Demographics. 3. Geography. 4. Actual requirements, traffic volumes.


Did you read my previous post this week? You did not reply to my main arguments of an earlier post, e.g. the social economic case study of Bjørnland, see http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=134224544&postcount=4035. When you are interested in a serious discussion, please reply with to his earlier post. 



ElviS77 said:


> Making those into 2+1, 1+1 or decent 2-lane highways is perhaps even more important than building motorways, and it doesn't come free.


Statistics show that motorways reduce fatality numbers more than any other road and allow faster and more reliable traffic. Motorways have lower levels of injury per vehicle km than other roads: 

Motorways: 1.9 deaths in billion travel km
Non-motorways: 6.6 deaths in billion travel km
http://www.bast.de/EN/Publications/Media/Unfallkarten-national-englisch.pdf?__blob=publicationFile

Motorways are more than 3,5 better in safety than 2-lane or turbo 2-lane roads. 
To compare with Sweden doesn’t work here. Sweden has very wide 2-lane main roads. It has been a best practice to drive on the shoulders to let others pass. Not much budget was needed to convert into 2+1 roads. In Norway the roads are narrow and sinous. Therefore you need to build a new road, with only few exceptions. For a 2+1 road you need 14.5 m (H5), while a 2x2 motorway needs 20 m (H8). Only a difference of 5.5 m. This was the reason E39 Stavanger-Lyngdal will be built as motorway with a predicted AADT of only 6000-8000. E134 Bergen-Oslo has a predicted AADT of more than 8000.



ElviS77 said:


> Sometimes, the compromises turn out to be mistakes - the short-term planning of the 70s, 80s and 90s is a prime example. We have been moving away from that kind of thinking for some time now, but that doesn't mean we'll start building motorways everywhere.


Bergen – Oslo is not only relevant for Oslo and Bergen, but the new connection via Haukeli serves the 3 most important regions in western Norway and finally facilitates Bergen with more direct access to the south-east. Norway needs better infrastructure between Bergen and Oslo via E134 Haukeli, the shortest route. Today it is also the busiest connection. For all people of Rogaland and Hordaland, this new E134 will be the favorite route to Oslo with more than 1 million people. Is that important or not?


----------



## ElviS77

berlinwroclaw said:


> To compare with Sweden doesn’t work here. Sweden has very wide 2-lane main roads. It has been a best practice to drive on the shoulders to let others pass. Not much budget was needed to convert into 2+1 roads. In Norway the roads are narrow and sinous. Therefore you need to build a new road, with only few exceptions. For a 2+1 road you need 14.5 m (H5), while a 2x2 motorway needs 20 m (H8). Only a difference of 5.5 m. This was the reason E39 Stavanger-Lyngdal will be built as motorway with a predicted AADT of only 6000-8000. E134 Bergen-Oslo has a predicted AADT of more than 8000.
> 
> Bergen – Oslo is not only relevant for Oslo and Bergen, but the new connection via Haukeli serves the 3 most important regions in western Norway and finally facilitates Bergen with more direct access to the south-east. Norway needs better infrastructure between Bergen and Oslo via E134 Haukeli, the shortest route. Today it is also the busiest connection. For all people of Rogaland and Hordaland, this new E134 will be the favorite route to Oslo with more than 1 million people.


You know, what really ticks people off, is the fact that you pretend to know and understand *more* about Norway (and Scandinavia) than road-interested people who actually live here and have done so for decades. Please stop.



berlinwroclaw said:


> Is that important or not?


Really, no, it's not particularly important: a Haukeli motorway is actually unimportant enough to never happen...


----------



## metasmurf

It's easy to draw fancy motorway plans on a map when you don't have to take anything else into consideration but your own agenda.

However, in the real world, where road funds are finite, investigations need to be made where consideration to other infrastructure, land use, the environment, geology and dozens of other parameters need to be made.

Just as an example, the investigation for a 2+1 stretch on E4 Between Hudiksvall and Sundsvall had to be scrapped, because the proposed stretch threatened the security of a water catchment of a village along the road, thus a new investigation has been started. This just shows you how local conditions can affect building plans.

Another example was when a new railway was constructed just south of the town where I live. Because of concerns to bird life, 105 million SEK had to be spent on compensating measures after pressure from ornithologists. Environmentalist bullshit or not, this is the kind of compromises you sometimes have to make when a lot of different interests conflict with each other in a democratic society.

When it comes to priorities, a report from 2011 by Statens Vegvesen shows that 1 666 km of the national road network (E-roads and Riksveier) lacks yellow divider line with road width often under 6m wide where basic accessibility is a concern. 

Also, there are several congested roads near cities people need to drive on in order to get to their jobs, often regular two lane roads. One example being E6 south of Trondheim with an AADT of 30 000 where a motorway has been needed for decades only started construction recently. With this is mind, it's easy to see that highest driving comfort for a few thousand trucks and cars along E134 will be at the bottom of the pile of sensible priorities.

Norway isn't Sim City or the U.S in the 1950's with an interstate plan where you can build roads wherever not giving a shit about anything or anyone else.


----------



## Mathias Olsen

ElviS77 said:


> we have 700-2000+ kms of road where motorways would make sense. The higher estimate would include Oslo-Stavanger-Bergen, Oslo-Trondheim-Steinkjer, Oslo-Svinesund, Oslo-Ørje plus some ring roads


About investing in infrastructure for decades ahead, why not ask young people in Norway who are not retired when oil resources are over within a few decades?
Present generation from agricultural background is used to think in local issues, not in the perspective of a global society where export connections are critical. A reliable highspeed road Stavanger/Bergen < E134 > Oslo/Svinesund is an essential instrument to facilitate such connections to prevent economic weakness for the younger generation.


----------



## Mathias Olsen

*Progress construction motorway E18 Oslo-Kristiansand*

An overview of the construction of the missing motorway links on the E18 Oslo-Kristiansand.

1.	E18 Langangen-Rugtvedt (17 km)










It is expected to start construction in 2017 and to complete this section in 2020. The existing Grenland Bridge will only be used for northbound traffic. 

A new bridge for southbound traffic will be constructed.










2.	E18 Rugtvedt-Dørdal (17 km)

According to Transport Minister Ketil Solvik-Olsen it is the planning to complete this section in 2020. 
Two wild crossings will be added to the motorway. 

Costs of this motorway upgrade are 4,46 billion.

Rugtved junction where the new 4-lane motorway will start










3.	E18 Tvedestrand-Arendal (23 km)










Start of construction is expected in spring 2017, according to schedule it will be completed in 2019.
Construction works culvert and portal Trælfjell tunnel










Speed limit on all new E18 motorway sections will be 110 km/h.

The new sections will connect Kristiansand with Oslo and the rest of Europe by motorway in 2020.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

The easiest way from Kristiansand to the continental motorway network will still be by ferry, though. 
http://www.fergetildanmark.no/



Mathias Olsen said:


> Present generation from agricultural background is used to think in local issues, not in the perspective of a global society where export connections are critical. A reliable highspeed road Stavanger/Bergen < E134 > Oslo/Svinesund is an essential instrument to facilitate such connections to prevent economic weakness for the younger generation.


Not much new under the sun (?) here I can see. Perhaps E134 could be isolated in a thread of its own? 

Will not the ferries from Stavanger and Kristiansand be be more important for export also from Hordaland if E39 become ferry free? Just asking....


----------



## Ingenioren

Mathias Olsen said:


> The new sections will connect Kristiansand with Oslo and the *rest of Europe* by motorway in 2020.


Funny that you would say that, i was very surpriced when my extended family from Belgium chose to go to Røldal via the bridges - actually they added 400km of driving to avoid a 2,5 hours ferry.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

The Hirtshals - Kristiansand ferry is quite expensive on popular weekends, for example a one-way ticket for tomorrow is € 265 for a car and 4 persons and the ferry ride is too short to avoid an overnight stay when coming from the Benelux.


----------



## Ingenioren

True, but the bridges are not free - and this route adds more tolls in Norway (possibly rushour Göteborg) aswell, on top of that fuel+wear/tear for 400km * 0.5 eur = you didn't save much.


----------



## ElviS77

As mentioned yesterday, I did a road trip this week. Here's my trip report for day one, sadly without pictures as yet...

My original intention was to drive through Telemark along a different route than the E134, either to the south (Bø-Kviteseid-Vrådal in some way or another) or the north (Rjukan-Rauland-Arabygdi), but when I got to Kongsberg, I realized I'd left my wallet at home, so I had to go back... That meant time became an issue, so I followed the E134. I've driven it on numerous occations over the years, and the most obvious aspect of it is that it is virtually consistantly substandard all the way until west Telemark. It hasn't been improved all that much, apart from between Drammen and Kongsberg. The problem there is that it's still two-lane (or 2+1 divided), and when the traffic is just a little bit busy, two lanes doesn't cut it. It's even worse between Kongsberg and Notodden: the road is still busy, but narrow, twisty with a 70 km/h speed limit and no places to overtake. Further west the traffic was lighter, of course, but it's still not exactly a fast road... The main reason is probably that - opposed to most other main roads in eastern Norway - the E134 does not follow a main valley, but jumps across from one valley to the next. Up and down the hillsides curves and steep hills are aplenty, and it has been rather difficult to improve the road without major construction works. On the plus side, it's a pleasant drive with many interesting things to see, natural and man-made.

As mentioned, the road gets somewhat better further west, and the road across the Haukeli plateau is decent apart from the fairly old and narrow tunnels. I did, however, decide to avoid the tunnels the best I could, instead I would follow the old road. That is a worthwhile thing to do if you have the time and a normal-sized car. The road is paved, one-lane and the views are quite good. I was a little bit underwhelmed, though, as I did expect something slightly more spectacular. Nonetheless, that's being pedantic and Norwegian and a road geek combined, the views are actually great...

Reaching Røldal, it was almost seven o'clock. Luckily, I only had about 40 more kms to go to Sauda. I reached Sauda well after eight... The fv 520 is something else. It's a part of the National Tourist Route Ryfylke, and it's fantastic. It's a one-plus-lane road, paved, but increadibly twisty. It's closed in winter even though it doesn't reach 1000 metrea above sea level - but for good reason. First, it runs along the hillside a few hundred metres above lake Røldal - spectacular views, but enough to spook me (I'm a little bit afraid of heights...). Further along, it crosses a really interesting mountain landscape before descending into a narrow and beautiful valley. Eventually, I arrived in Sauda, an industrial town by the fjord. Quite pretty, but the weather didn't really support any major excursions. I went for food and two beers instead...


----------



## Mathias Olsen

ElviS77 said:


> the views are quite good. I was a little bit underwhelmed, though, as I did expect something slightly more spectacular. Nonetheless, that's being pedantic and Norwegian and a road geek combined, the views are actually great...


Nice that you shared this experience. Good that you have attention and appreciation for more than roads and construction works. It can give a relaxed feeling and even a little bit unity with the beauty of nature.


----------



## satanism

a bit more on the crazy e39 project and the floating bridge, with some time and cost projection. in danish.
http://ekstrabladet.dk/ferie/se-norges-vilde-undervandsprojekt-til-169-milliarder/6204640


----------



## ChrisZwolle

^^ I've seen that report in a lot of media, in all kinds of languages.

However, they did not seem to do any fact checking, just copying each other.

The floating submerged tunnel is just one of several options explored for the Sognefjord Crossing. As far as I know it's not set in stone that they will choose the floating tunnel as the solution.

They also seem to get the cost wrong, it appears that they apply the cost of the entire E39 ferry-free project, which includes several very large fjord crossings, to this single tunnel. They are really not going to spend € 20 - 25 billion (200+ billion NOK) (!) on a single crossing.


----------



## coolstuff

*High-speed motorway tunnels*

Some older tunnels have reduced speed limit in the tunnel. 










However, new Norwegian motorway tunnels are designed with a T10,5 profile. They make possible to drive with 110 km/h without concession to safety. That is a difference with many other countries. Germany has a speed limit of 80 km/h, Netherlands 100 km/h. http://www.vegvesen.no/***/Publikasjoner/Handboker/nyheter/fartsgrense-i-motorvegtunneler.

The T10,5 profile is also one of the options on the second tube of E134 in Drammen. On the new Rogfast E39 Stavanger-Haugesund, there is a 2 x T10,5 profile.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

I like the fact that there aren't reduced speed limits in Norwegian motorway tunnels. Germany is very annoying with their 80 km/h speed limits which are increasingly common due to new artificial tunnels to reduce noise being built in a lot of places. Some German Autobahn tunnels are limited at 100 km/h though, it appears to vary by state. Swiss motorway tunnels also tend to have low speed limits.

The Netherlands doesn't have fixed speed limits for motorway tunnels. As a large amount of motorway tunnels are in the Randstad region, they have a 100 km/h speed limit because most of the Randstad region is limited to 100 km/h. However, speed limits up to 130 km/h can also be found. Italian motorway tunnels also frequently feature 130 km/h speed limits.


----------



## berlinwroclaw

ChrisZwolle said:


> The Netherlands doesn't have fixed speed limits for motorway tunnels. As a large amount of motorway tunnels are in the Randstad region, they have a 100 km/h speed limit because most of the Randstad region is limited to 100 km/h. However, speed limits up to 130 km/h can also be found.


Motorway tunnels in the Netherlands with 130 km/h? Aren't you confused with "ecoducts"? Can you give me an example of such a tunnel with a length of at least 250 m?


----------



## keokiracer

berlinwroclaw said:


> Motorway tunnels in the Netherlands with 130 km/h? Aren't you confused with "ecoducts"? Can you give me an example of such a tunnel with a length of at least 250 m?


Vlaketunnel (A58 in Zeeland, 327 meters), Wijkertunnel (A9 at Beverwijk, 680 meters). The latter is currently 90km/h due to an extra lane where the hard shoulder used to be because the nearby Velsertunnel is closed for renvoation. But that will revert to 130km/h once the renovation is done and the extra lane is removed.


----------



## berlinwroclaw

keokiracer said:


> Vlaketunnel (A58 in Zeeland, 327 meters), Wijkertunnel (A9 at Beverwijk, 680 meters). The latter is currently 90km/h due to an extra lane where the hard shoulder used to be because the nearby Velsertunnel is closed for renvoation. But that will revert to 130km/h once the renovation is done and the extra lane is removed.


I have replied this Netherlands specific QA in the Netherlands thread: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=134441591&postcount=13725


----------



## Mathias Olsen

*Progress motorway E6 Oslo – Lillehammer*










Many sections on motorway E6 Oslo – Kolomoen have been added last years, such as this one near Kolomoen:










Coming years new extensions will be added:

1.	E6 Kolomoen - Biri










Four lane E6 motorway from Gardermoen to the north has been completed till Kolomoen (64 km) on 25 June 2015. Next upgrade of the E6 will be Kolomoen-Biri (56 km). Again an expansion of the E6 from a 2+1 road to a 4-lane motorway. The further development of this section will be managed by the state-owned corporation New Roads AS. Kolomoen-Moelv is a stretch of 43 kilometers and E6 have alternately two and three lanes. NPRA is plans to expand to 4-lane motorway. Construction will start not earlier than in 2018. http://www.vegvesen.no/Europaveg/e6...f30382f3b2934286465646e756f72&_ts=15312f0f2b0

2.	E6 Biri – Lillehammer

In February 2016, there has been approval to widen the E6 about 7 kilometers along Hamar to 4-lane motorway. between Kåterud in Stange municipality and Arnkvern the municipal boundary between Hamar and Ringsaker. The expansion is scheduled be included in a future four-lane route Biri-Lillehammer. 










For now, there are no plans for an upgrade to a motorway to Otta. This section will be only upgraded with 2-lane and 2+1 sections. Between Elstad (just south of Ringebu) and Frya a new section is planned with possible construction in 2017.


----------



## MattiG

ElviS77 said:


> As mentioned yesterday, I did a road trip this week. Here's my trip report for day one, sadly without pictures as yet...


I have an road atlas from 1970, covering Finland, Sweden, Norway, and Denmark. It was published by Reader's Digest. I made scans of two areas, hopefully having some interest:

The first one, stitched across two pages, shows that the current road 13 on Suldalsvatn does not exist yet. The road 13 has a branch to Sauda. The current E134 carries the number 10, and the current 13 towards Odda is 47.

No tunnels. Descent to Røldal from east over the hairpins of Austmannli.










The second one shows the old routing of the Rv13. Rv13 had a gap (perhaps to be filled by a new road NW of Sauda). After the gap, it followed the route of the current 48 to Tysse to join 7/E68. (At Trengereid, it continued to Voss over Bergsdalen.)


----------



## MattiG

*But Where Is Sandsfjordsbrua?*

There is an interesting error in Google Maps. The new bridge over Sandsfjord is drawn where the ferry connection between Sand and Ropeid was located. In fact, the bridge is located about 11 km SW.


----------



## sotonsi

^^ It's interesting in that the correct location is also shown as a road. Google Maps' background data isn't that reliable when obtained via means other than a Streetview car and the (ever-increasingly) terrible cartography* means that StreetView is the only reason I use it.

*I'm surprised we can even see the less important roads there - thankfully it's a wooded area so the green provides some contrast between grey roads without borders and slightly-different grey background!


----------



## italystf

MattiG said:


> There is an interesting error in Google Maps. The new bridge over Sandsfjord is drawn where the ferry connection between Sand and Ropeid was located. In fact, the bridge is located about 11 km SW.


Wow, that seems a pretty gross mistake, I've never found anything like this on Google Maps.


----------



## ElviS77

MattiG said:


> The first one, stitched across two pages, shows that the current road 13 on Suldalsvatn does not exist yet. The road 13 has a branch to Sauda. The current E134 carries the number 10, and the current 13 towards Odda is 47.
> 
> No tunnels. Descent to Røldal from east over the hairpins of Austmannli.
> 
> The second one shows the old routing of the Rv13. Rv13 had a gap (perhaps to be filled by a new road NW of Sauda). After the gap, it followed the route of the current 48 to Tysse to join 7/E68. (At Trengereid, it continued to Voss over Bergsdalen.)


We have changed our road numbers considerably over the years, the E134 was rv 10, then E76, then rv 11... The realignment of the rv 13 and the current E16 (then E68) had more to do with new roads being built and new thhinking regarding where main and regional road corridors should be. For instance, the gap on the 1970 rv 13 has been proposed closed for decades, but a tunnel northwards from Sauda hasn't become a reality as yet. Bergsdalen was and is even worse for heavy traffic than the questionable Granvin-Nordheimsund road (current fv 7), so before the new Dale-Voss opened, it made sense to direct traffic to the then E68.

When it comes to Røldal and Haukeli, the tunnels on the mountain were there already in 1970 - opening in 1964 and 1968 repectively. The road alignments on the map also suggests that the tunnels were taken into consideration, but for some reason not marked.


----------



## MattiG

italystf said:


> Wow, that seems a pretty gross mistake, I've never found anything like this on Google Maps.


They have made some hilarious errors earlier. A few years ago, the Google Maps showed the Munich International Airport in the woods of the Southern Finland, to the west of the town of Hyvinkää.


----------



## ElviS77

Here comes day two of my trip, probably the most exciting part. First, I had to decide whether to double back over the Sauda Mountains to Røldal or to "go around", through Suldal. It's a far longer drive, but since I hadn't driven those roads before, I decided to opt for that route. I wasn't to be disappointed...

The first part, fv 520 Suldal-Ropeid, isn't very spectacular. A decent 2-lane highway along the fjord, some interesting views, but quite modest by western Norwegian standards. Thus, a 70-80 km/h average speed is also possible, even though there are a few twisty parts. Obviously, this road is far better than the northern section of fv 520, since it is the main connection between the industrial town of Sauda and the outside world. It doesn't change all that much at Ropeid (I did not try to follow Google's instructions...), but the fv 520/46 intersection is actually somewhat interesting - it's the only H-shaped road junction I know in Norway. Why they didn't build a roundabout beats me... The fv 46 from there to the rv 13 intersection is mainly the same as the Sauda road, decent 2-lane standard. However, the Sandsfjord crossing is brand New, meaning that the road is also of a much better quality - wider, with shoulders, and the curves are designed with an 80 km/h driving speed in mind. The views are also good.

From there, I took the rv 13. One would perhaps expect a national road to be better than a regional one, but this being Norway, it's not that simple. The road is basically the same as the one you see in the above map, some sections might have been paved since 1970, though. The road is fairly narrow, twisty and steep to Sand, the views are alright, but not extraordinary. The Suldal is nice up to lake Suldal, the road remains twisty and narrow (1+ to 2- lanes). From there, it gets really cool. The road - built in the 70s along the north shore of the lake - runs through a landscape with almost vertical cliff faces all around. Of course, there are a few tunnels, but it rapidly turned into one of my favourite Norwegian drives. The lake itself is worth mentioning, it seems quite small, but it's still one of the deepest in Norway (and, thus, Europe...) - max depth 376 m...

From there, the valley towards Røldal is really nice even though the road isn't. The view of lake Røldal is also very different, rv 13 runs along it's shore, fv 520 is several hundred meters higher up the hillside... When I got to Røldal, I took the old road across the mountains towards Odda, and that's really something. The road is from the 1880s, I think, and not much have changed, apart from the pavement - but even that is old... It's not really a scary road, even though the Seljestad gorge might be a little bit brutal to some, but it's really beautiful up there - even in poor weather. The road is single lane, but there's not much traffic, so you won't care. Do not bring a caravan, though! 

From there, I followed the decent E134/rv 13 to where the rv 13 turns off towards Odda. That road isn't much different from the 1970 map either, and it's crowded with tourists. Understandably so, it's a nice place to be, but when most of the road has less than two proper lanes and there are tourist buses, HGVs, caravans etc, the drive is fairly slow. I was prepared for this, though, I've driven there fairly recently. However, last time I drove there, I came down the fv 550 on the west side of Sørfjorden. That is a decent modernized road, not too busy and mainly two lanes. I hadn't driven the rv 13 on the east side of the fjord for 20+ years, so I expected a similar state of affairs there. Not so. With the exception of a couple of tunnels, the road through fantastically beautiful Hardanger is much like it's always been, a road where it's difficult to impossible for two buses or HGVs to meet. With a very different traffic load than back in the day, the drive to the Hardanger bridge was painfully slow (and the rain was pouring down, so I didn't really feel like stopping either...). But it's beautiful, so focusing on the nature rather than the Croatian lorry and the German bus ahead of me, made sense. And the lack of speed meant it wasn't really dangerous either...

The Hardanger bridge is really good. Pretty, but not in any way taking focus away from the surroundings. Nice piece of engineering, really. From there, I again had a choice - see the mountains from the inside and take the 7.5 km Vallavik tunnel or go through Ulvik along the fv 572. I chose the latter. The road to Ulvik is quite ok, still great views along the fjord, but the road over the mountain is very good. Much narrower, twisty, but - again - not in any way scary or extreme. A nice drive, absolutely recommended. Eventually, I hit the rv 13 again, and up to Voss the road has been improved recently and is a fairly good two-laner. Much the same with the E16 towards Dale, although that improvement is some years older (and there's a fairly significant landslide/rockfall hazard). The road is often quite busy, but I was lucky - the rocks fell further north and the road was reasonably quiet... 

From Dale I took what I consider to be one of the most spectacular tourist routes there is - the fv 569. It runs along a fjord, the views are breathtaking, and the road is amazing: 30 kms of single-lane traffic, with narrow tunnels where you sometimes just have to assume no-one comes in the other direction... Amazing. Eventually, you get to the bottom of the fjord and start climbing a pretty valley to a 3 km tunnel which takes you to Modalen. From there, the road improves and the views are slightly less spectacular. Eventually, the road meets the E39 at Romarheim.

The final stretch of my day was 40 kms from there to the ferry at Oppedal which took me across the Sognefjord to Lavik. That road isn't really very interesting, simply because it has been improved significantly over the past couple of decades, meaning there are several tunnels and restricted views. It is a decent-to-good two-lane highway where one easily averages 80 km/h - unless there are too many lorries or caravans to deal with... The ferry ride was a bit interesting, though, since I was on the first battery-powered ferry in Norway.


----------



## ElviS77

One of the most interesting things to look at when trying to understand the current state of Norway's main roads, is to see how they have been improved over the years. I've linked to http://www.riksvei.no/ before, but then mainly because it's an interesting source to the olden days. However, it also tells us quite a bit about how things have changed... 

We can clearly see where it all began. When we started numberng our national highway grid in 1931, it was basically based on old rural roads and a few national roads built from the mid-1800s and onwards. When car sales were made open to everyone in 1960, not all that much had changed, apart from around the towns and cities. Road transport hadn't been for everyone, and it was certainly not considered very important. Things changed in the 60s, but it moved fairly slowly in real life. Plans were made (Norsk Vegplan of 1965, I think, suggested the construction of hundreds of km of motorways by 1980), but politics made a centralized development centered around Oslo very difficult. So, what came instead was gradual improvements everywhere - starting with pavement, moving on to widening of some important routes, then some realignment, and finally the construction of brand new roads. 

Looking at the Oslo-Svinesund road, we actually see all these stages: The Svinesund bridge opened just after the war. Then, unpaved pieces of road were paved in the 50s, before some moderate realignments happened beween then and the 80s, actually. Of course, some sections were completely realigned already in the 60s (south of Oslo, north of Moss), but this wasn't the norm. Eventually, the road was developed into a 2-lane expressway (partially motorway) between the 60s and the 90s, but then they realized that high-speed busy 2-lane roads weren't particularly safe or effective, so they dualled the remaining part over the next decade. 

All of this meant that several sections of this 100-km stretch of road have been reconstructed or realigned three, four, perhaps even five times over the past 60 years or so, and this is not a unique situation. Many readers are familiar with this, but I still think it's worth mentioning... I've also been looking - unsuccessfully, I might add... - for a complete survey of the pre-1965 numbering system. The following one, from Norwegian Wikipedia, is the best I've found: https://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_over_gamle_riksveier


----------



## MattiG

ElviS77 said:


> We can clearly see where it all began. When we started numbering our national highway grid in 1931, it was basically based on old rural roads and a few national roads built from the mid-1800s and onwards.


It is interesting to see how different an approach the neighboring countries have taken what comes to road numbering.

Finland introduced the first road numbering scheme in 1938, and most of that system is still in place. The initial system listed primary routes 1-21 and secondary routes 51-82. With the exception of the areas lost after the WW II, the grid created in 1938 matches very well with the existing network. Of course, a lot of new routes have been built, and some major reroutings have been done.

The only major numbering reform in Finland took place in mid-1990's. That one introduced a number of new primary and secondary routes, but only one original primary route (19) lost its status and was downgraded to 88. (Most of the reform was about making a more clear separation into three grades of the lower network.)

Meanwhile, Norway has changed the system several times, and renumbering seems to be a continual process in Sweden.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

ElviS77 said:


> The lake itself is worth mentioning, it seems quite small, but it's still one of the deepest in Norway (and, thus, Europe...) - max depth 376 m...


I sometimes found it difficult to differentiate between lakes and fjords, especially in the Nordfjord area near Stryn where there are numerous lakes slightly above sea level that look like extensions of the Nordfjord.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

*Riksvei 5 Sogndal - Fjærland*

A couple of photos of Riksvei 5 from Sogndal to the Frudal Tunnel. A very scenic stretch of road.


Riksvei 5 Sogndal-1 by European Roads, on Flickr


Riksvei 5 Sogndal-3 by European Roads, on Flickr


Riksvei 5 Sogndal-4 by European Roads, on Flickr


Riksvei 5 Sogndal-5 by European Roads, on Flickr


Riksvei 5 Sogndal-6 by European Roads, on Flickr


Riksvei 5 Sogndal-7 by European Roads, on Flickr


Riksvei 5 Sogndal-8 by European Roads, on Flickr


----------



## MattiG

ElviS77 said:


> Here comes day two of my trip, probably the most exciting part.


You seem to have followed a few of my favourite paths...



> The Suldal is nice up to lake Suldal, the road remains twisty and narrow (1+ to 2- lanes). From there, it gets really cool. The road - built in the 70s along the north shore of the lake - runs through a landscape with almost vertical cliff faces all around. Of course, there are a few tunnels, but it rapidly turned into one of my favourite Norwegian drives.


Are the tunnels still in their original shape, narrow and tight? At least the latest map for the heavy traffic shows eight tunnels with height limits of 4.30-4.40 meters. However, the map does not categorize the road as difficult.












> It's not really a scary road, even though the Seljestad gorge might be a little bit brutal to some, but it's really beautiful up there - even in poor weather. The road is single lane, but there's not much traffic, so you won't care. Do not bring a caravan, though!


The old road is an interesting showcase to the history of road construction. It is possible to see the ancient hairpins and a part the existing tunnel road at the same time:












> Eventually, I hit the rv 13 again, and up to Voss the road has been improved recently and is a fairly good two-laner.


It is somewhat pity that the hairpin ascend over Skjervet has been replaced by a tunnel. Is the old road still passable?



> From Dale I took what I consider to be one of the most spectacular tourist routes there is - the fv 569. It runs along a fjord, the views are breathtaking, and the road is amazing: 30 kms of single-lane traffic, with narrow tunnels where you sometimes just have to assume no-one comes in the other direction...


Ahh. That one. It is almost possible to see rear lights of the own car in some curves.












> The final stretch of my day was 40 kms from there to the ferry at Oppedal which took me across the Sognefjord to Lavik. That road isn't really very interesting, simply because it has been improved significantly over the past couple of decades, meaning there are several tunnels and restricted views. It is a decent-to-good two-lane highway where one easily averages 80 km/h - unless there are too many lorries or caravans to deal with...


I drove that once in the late 1980's when it still was Rv14. Eikefettunnelen was complete, but the Masfjordtunnelen and Jernfjellstunnelen were not. Neither was Nordhordlandsbrua but there was a ferry connection from Steinestø to Knarvik. The road was a narrow 1-lane one and of ancient construction, thus quite scary, and a lot of longer than the current one. In that time, the southern end of the Sognefjord crossing was not in Oppedal but in Brekke.


----------



## Ingenioren

MattiG said:


> It is somewhat pity that the hairpin ascend over Skjervet has been replaced by a tunnel. Is the old road still passable?


Yeah, it's a nasjonal turistveg now so there is a fancy facility at the waterfall:


----------



## MattiG

Ingenioren said:


> Yeah, it's a nasjonal turistveg now so there is a fancy facility at the waterfall:


Wow! That makes sightseeing much easier than earlier. The "riksvei grade" road did not have good space to make a break.


----------



## ElviS77

MattiG said:


> Are the tunnels still in their original shape, narrow and tight? At least the latest map for the heavy traffic shows eight tunnels with height limits of 4.30-4.40 meters. However, the map does not categorize the road as difficult.


Well, the tunnels along that part of rv 13 are like in the picture, "typical Norwegian" 2-lane tunnels, not at all difficult to negociate, but not state of the art either. The older parts of the road, between Sand and lake Suldal and lake Suldal and Røldal, are far worse, narrow and twisty, but not particularly difficult, even for lorries.



MattiG said:


> Ahh. That one. It is almost possible to see rear lights of the own car in some curves.


:lol:



MattiG said:


> I drove that once in the late 1980's when it still was Rv14. Eikefettunnelen was complete, but the Masfjordtunnelen and Jernfjellstunnelen were not. Neither was Nordhordlandsbrua but there was a ferry connection from Steinestø to Knarvik. The road was a narrow 1-lane one and of ancient construction, thus quite scary, and a lot of longer than the current one. In that time, the southern end of the Sognefjord crossing was not in Oppedal but in Brekke.


I did the exact same thing, apart from being a backseat driver (didn't get my licence until 91...). The road has simply been transformed over the past couple of decades, which tells quite a bit what difference political priorities: Stavanger-Trondheim along the E39 is almost bearable nowadays, not so 25 years ago...


----------



## ElviS77

Day three of my trip was slightly less spectacular than day two, but still really nice. Average speeds were up as well, on day two I had well over 7 hours of effective driving and covered 400 kms. Add to that the fact that the first 50 and last 50 kms were reasonably quick, averaging about 80 km/h, it tells you something about the rest of the day... 

I began taking the E39 east and northwards from Lavik. Again, the road has been improved apart from a short leftover piece of road at Vadheim, so the drive was reasonably quick and the views of the Sognefjord was good... inbetween the tunnels, that is. This is actually the deepest part of Norway's deepest fjord, 1,308 metres at the deepest. One understands that a subsea tunnel is out of the question for the ferry-free E39... 

At Sande (one of many Norwegian places with that name) I took the fv 610 towards Gaularfjell. It's a part of the National Tourist Route, which makes sense. It runs along a pretty valley with a nice lake, meadows, steep mountains... The road is quite narrow, single-lane in places, but it's not too much of a hassle, since there's virtually no traffic to speak of. I liked the road, even though it isn't spectacular like some of the others I've driven.

The Gaularfjell road itself is an old favourite, a classic switchback mountain road with fantastic views and not too scary alignment. It's a part of the now fv 13, a decent 1+/2- lane road on the west side of the mountain, more single-lane down the mountain side on the east side, then again decent quality when you reach the valley and eventually the fjord. The Balestrand area is another pearl, beautiful nature and pretty houses.

From there, at Dragsvik, I took the ferry to Hella. Remaining on the north side of the Sognefjord (the ferry crosses an arm of the fjord), my drive took me along the rv 55 towards Sogndal. The first part of the road is really pretty, but also pretty slow. Busy and narrow, filled up with tourist coaches, caravans, HGVs... At one point we were at a complete standstill for about 15 minutes. At first I was worried it was an accident, but leaving the car and walking 50 metres revealed the true nature of the problem - German bus vs Norwegian lorry - how to get past each other..? Eventually, it was sorted, and the road also sorts itself out somewhat past Leikanger. Two lanes more or less all the way to Sogndal.

I had a couple of alternatives in Sogndal, but I went for the familiar and straightforward: rv 5 to Lærdal. Not a particularly exciting road, although the views from the Mannheller-Fodnes Ferry are also superb. My longest tunnel on the trip was actually the 6.6 km Fodnes tunnel, but reasonably modern tunnels are more boring than anything else, and it wasn't even my first drive there...

From Lærdal to Borlaug, it was the E16, another place where one can see Norwegian political will in action. First time I drove there (sometime in the early 90s, I believe), the road was crap. I've driven there a few times since, and it has been steadily improved. Now, it's basically complete on the western side of Filefjell (I actually drove up to the plateau to see progress there, and it's nearing completion. I think everything will open next year, meaning that one can easily average 80 km/h (or more, if the traffic police don't scare you...) all the way. 

Eventually, I returned down to Borlaug and picked up the rv 52 towards Hemsedal. It is a fairly good 2-lane road across the plateau, a bit steep and twisty up from Borlaug to the road's highest point - 1137 metres. Long, straight parts across the mountain invites speeding, and the decent to Hemsedal isn't much to talk about. Hemsedal is one of the biggest alpine skiing areas in Norway, but it works in summer as well...


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Toll collection at the Oslofjord Tunnel will end at 31 August 2016 at 12:00 hrs.


----------



## Mathias Olsen

ElviS77 said:


> From Lærdal to Borlaug, it was the E16, another place where one can see Norwegian political will in action. First time I drove there (sometime in the early 90s, I believe), the road was crap. I've driven there a few times since, and it has been steadily improved. Now, it's basically complete on the western side of Filefjell (I actually drove up to the plateau to see progress there, and it's nearing completion. I think everything will open next year, meaning that one can easily average 80 km/h (or more, if the traffic police don't scare you...) all the way.


Good to see the preference for E16 by politics as main road improved so much since the 90s. There is hope for some priority roads, such as the E16. Because it is fast, with good road quality, not blocked by snow there should be good reasons to select the E16/Rv52 as the second main road Bergen-Oslo and not the Rv7.


----------



## Mathias Olsen

ElviS77 said:


> so I followed the E134. I've driven it on numerous occations over the years, and the most obvious aspect of it is that it is virtually consistantly substandard all the way until west Telemark. It hasn't been improved all that much, apart from between Drammen and Kongsberg. The problem there is that it's still two-lane (or 2+1 divided), and when the traffic is just a little bit busy, two lanes doesn't cut it. It's even worse between Kongsberg and Notodden: the road is still busy, but narrow, twisty with a 70 km/h speed limit and no places to overtake.


Some photos of substandard road on E134 near Notodden.










Good that this year a new road between Kongsberg and Notodden has been approved. Last year a bridge on the E134 had to be closed because of high water near Omnesfossen waterfall.










TIMEkspressen bus had a collision on January 6, 2016 at the Telemark / Buskerud border.










By the way, much more accidents in Buskerud in 2016 than last year. They cannot find common root cases for the accidents. But it will help to speed up improvements of the E134 in this area.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Flooding has paralyzed traffic in the Oslo region:


----------



## berlinwroclaw

Mathias Olsen said:


> TIMEkspressen bus had a collision on January 6, 2016 at the Telemark / Buskerud border.


There has been a proposal to build a high speed train Bergen-Oslo via Haukeli. Costs: NOK 210 billion. Although some studies showed feasibility, the parliament rejected the proposal. 
Fast buses can be an alternative to the high speed train. They are a more cost effective solution and more environment friendly public transport from Bergen to Oslo. But these kind of huge vehicles need wide and fast roads. Costs for a motorway Bergen-Oslo are only 60 billion, a bargain compared with the high speed train. Intermediate stops can be fast with stops at diamond interchanges, so also Odda, Notodden and Kongsberg will have profit.


----------



## coolstuff

ElviS77 said:


> The Hardanger bridge is really good. Pretty, but not in any way taking focus away from the surroundings. Nice piece of engineering, really.


Yes, beautiful bridge and attractive for tourists. 

Nice also for Voss and a "cottage road" for people of Bergen to Haugastøl and Geilo, but for the rest of the west coast this investment is a monumental stupidity. We all know that there are no heavy weight arguments to build this bridge. After opening, the traffic is still lower than on E16 Filefjell or E134 Haukeli. Rv7 is not a serious alternative. NPRA and activists in Ullensvang and Eidfjord did incredible much effort with lobby work for 26 years with “Hardangerbrua AS”. NPRA has admitted meanwhile, this bridge should have been built at Jondal, serving more East – West traffic via E134. Now municipalities Odda, Jondal, Kvam and others will come with "Jondal bridge AS".


----------



## Stafangr




----------



## ElviS77

The final day of my road trip was far more interesting than it could have been, as I didn't simply take the main rv 52/7 road to Oslo - too boring, too fast, too done before... I was also going to make a stop in Valdres, so I had to use an alternative road. Here goes:

I did follow the rv 52 down to Gol and continued on the rv 7 for a few kms. Then I turned left onto a very minor road climbing its way up the east side of the Hallingdal. Nice, narrow and eventually gravel. Not only that, the gravel road experience came with a fairly hefty toll - 70 NOK. Such tolled minor roads are fairly common in rural areas in Norway, particularly in the mountains (and I suspect that us being used to pay tolls going to our cabins in the woods, made it simpler to get us to accept other road tolls as well... I might be mistaken, though...). This road (Herad-Bagn) is a cool drive, narrow, prone to sheep and cattle, but not in any way difficult, and it runs through what feels like pure wilderness. This being Norway, you will eventually reach quite a few cabins, some of them large and new, but it's still a different kind of experience.

Reaching Bagn, I wasn't fed up with gravel and continued over Tonsåsen on that stuff. The experience is fairly similar to the abovementioned, only not as long, more forest, less mountain, more population, better quality road and a lower toll - 20 NOK (you can drive this route along a toll-free county road, but that's less fun and gravel... No matter which of the routes you take, you get to see parts of the closed Valdres railroad. It's a shame that it doesn't run anymore, it's fun seeing these old station houses in the middle of a forested hill. The descent into Etnedal is actually paved, but the pavement is so bad in places I preferred the gravel.

From there, I left unnumbered gravel roads and took the fv 33 and then 34 down to and along Randsfjorden. I'm familiar with fv 33, but fv 34 was one of very few eastern Norwegian numbered roads I hadn't driven. Fv 33 is currently mainly in a more than decent state, having been improved over the past few years. It's not a very exciting road, but there are a few things to see. Turning onto fv 34 was a bit more interesting, as the views of Randsfjorden are fairly good. The road varies from ok to good to questionable - the good section being an almost brand new piece of toll road. I didn't know about the tolls, and they surprised me a bit - tolls on secondary routes where there are no tunnels and bridges aren't that common.

From Brandbu to Oslo, it took the rv 4 to Complete my trip. The northernmost 10 km section is currently all road works, since a motorway will open there later this year. The rest basically sums up everything about Norwegian road construction over the past five decades or so: first, a 90s 2-lane expressway to the Oppland-Akershus county border. Then, a regular 2-lane road in or in the vicinity of built-up areas (thus, a 40-70 km/h speed limit). Towards Gjelleråsen and the Oslo border there is a quite recent (2000s), fairly long 2-/3-lane tunnel that already at opening needed to get a second tube... In Oslo, the road starts as a 60 km/h urban 3-lane road (one bus lane) and becomes one of the first 4-lane dual carriageway sections in Norway, I even think it's protected... 

When I get my picture thing sorted, I'll share what I've got... For now, this travel report is all you get.


----------



## ElviS77

coolstuff said:


> (...)but for the rest of the west coast this investment is a monumental stupidity. We all know that there are no heavy weight arguments to build this bridge.


Well, it's there, it has been built. As far as I can see, there's not much we can do about the investment now... Better then to appreciate its beauty, methinks...


----------



## Mathias Olsen

ElviS77 said:


> rv 52/7 road to Oslo - too boring, too fast, too done before...I did follow the rv 52 down to Gol



Rv52 has indeed long boring stretches that invite to go fast. You can be adapted to the beautiful scenery . Some photos of Rv52. 

Laerdal, county border









Relative many heavy trucks on Rv52










Amazing scenery










Somewhere at Hemsedalfjell










Rv52 goes through three villages, including Trøim, where tourism plays an important role. Hemsedal is the best ski area in Norway, with over 20 lifts and more than 50 slopes. Also called the Scandinavian Alps. The advantage over the Alps is that snow is available at low altitude.

For tourists and drivers who want a reliable road Bergen-Oslo, Rv52 is a very popular option.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Rv. 52 is popular with truckers because it's not as steep as Rv. 7 or Fv. 50. The average daily truck volume is the highest of all east-west routes in southern Norway, even slightly higher than E134.


----------



## Mathias Olsen

ElviS77 said:


> Well, it's there, it has been built. As far as I can see, there's not much we can do about the investment now... Better then to appreciate its beauty, methinks...


Yes, but more money is needed for maintenance than the income collected by the drivers. Who has to pay finally? You and me perhaps  Is that what we want? There are already plans to conserve bridge parts and use them to built a new Jondal bridge.


----------



## berlinwroclaw

Mathias Olsen said:


> Relative many heavy trucks on Rv52


Well, well, a heavy truck passing another one: an Elephant race. It is not even a motorway, so the drivers must feel freedom here for such a game. On a motorway, an elephant race is very annoying and showstopper for fast drivers . From the perspective of a truck driver it must be big fun


----------



## berlinwroclaw

ElviS77 said:


> When I get my picture thing sorted, I'll share what I've got... For now, this travel report is all you get.


I am looking forward for days to see the pictures. You will do me a big pleasure to post your pictures.


----------



## ElviS77

Mathias Olsen said:


> Yes, but more money is needed for maintenance than the income collected by the drivers. Who has to pay finally? You and me perhaps  Is that what we want? There are already plans to conserve bridge parts and use them to built a new Jondal bridge.


I have a strong suspiscion that the Hardanger bridge will remain exactly where it is for a long time. Tearing it down would be a political disaster of spectacular magnitude as long as there's nothing technically wrong with the structure. A second Hardangerfjord crossing is not coming anytime soon, and I just don't believe anyone would suggest going from one to zero fixed Hardangerfjord crossings for a long period of time. I might be mistaken, of course...


----------



## ElviS77

I've done quite a bit of driving this summer. Over the weekend I went to Trondheim to pick up some furniture, and since my Volvo isn't that big, I hired a Ford Transit. Even though a Transit of today is a very different car from those 25 (or 50!) years ago, it's still not a very fast thing. Thus, going with the flow was more or less the only option, and this gives more time for contemplation up and down the rv 3. Since the road has been widened in quite a few places (and more sections are currently improved or at the planning stage), I was thinking about this and the speed limits.

A few years ago, roughly 100 kms of the rv 3 was 90 km/h. Today, it's 80 all the way, even along considerably improved sections which used to be 90 roads. This is somewhat of a predicament: since the current alignment invites considerably higher speeds than the old one, more people do not respect the posted limit. Now, I'm not a person who's likely to promote very high speed limits on undivided roads (anything above 100 is borderline insane in my book - places like the Outback aside...), but one needs to have a balance. Furthermore, when in Trondheim, I actually read an article about the number of speeders caught along rv 3 in Østerdalen this summer (ery high) where the person interviewed suggested that the interpretation of the speed limit as being too low may well be the main cause - the problem was that people not only stopped respecting the 80 km/h general limit, but also ignored 50 and 60 km/h zones. That is a major problem, since those lower limits are in place for very good reasons.

So, what to do? I'm against any general increase, partly because most Norwegian roads aren't up to the job, but mostly because I actually believe that speed limits which reflect the quality of the road are sensible - at least along the main traffic corridors. People will understand it if they'll see 90 km/h along the 8.5 metres wide newer sections of road and then 80 km/h along the rest (possibly even combined with a "narrow road" sign). Again, raising speed limits on 2-lane highways has its problems, but the alternative is far worse: a general disrespect of our speed limits altogether. This is, of course, not only a problem along the rv 3, an increasing number of main roads have a similar situation. In some places, particularly in northern Norway, new national roads are now built to 90 km/h standard, which partly sorts out the long-term issue, as does the construction of divided expressways.

(There are several future alternatives, of course: full motorway and/or divided expressway with a new alignment and/or divided 1+1/2+1 regular highway following the current road, but that's not my concern in this post, as none of these are likely to even be started north of Rena and south of Ulsberg in more than a decade - if at all.)

However, the rv 3 and a few other highways aren't like those roads. First of all, it's a reasonable standard road to begin with, and - at least at the moment - a widening and slight realignment is what it's going to get. Also, it's far busier than for instance the E6 on Helgeland in Nordland county, and its HGV traffic is considerable, meaning that a higher speed limit is more likely to impact road safety. Then again, a general disrespect for speed limits is ten times worse... In short, something needs to be done. We need improved roads for safer and faster travel, but we cannot have a general increase in speed on every roads. The only viable solution I see is more differenciated speed limits, but even that may be problematic. 

Thoughts?


----------



## metasmurf

Rv 3 reminds me more of a Swedish highway than a Norwegian one. A majority of the stretch could have 90 already, but I suspect political bullshit about "the environment" and "safety" has gotten in the way.

I don't know the AADT on the road, but apart from north of Elverum, I would believe the traffic volumes don't justify any major improvements, outside widening to 8,5m. There's just too little local traffic. I drove Alvdal - Tynset this summer, and it was far from busy.

Again, it comes down to politics. The whole stretch could have 90 with a little widening, getting rid of some intersections, building some parallel roads for local traffic, fixing curves etc, but that would be pretty much politically incorrect in these times.


----------



## Agent 006

A ca. 20 km? stretch between Koppang and Alvdal, currently under construction/widening, gonna be 9,0 m instead of 8,5 m, with a 0,5 m hatched/barrier lane. This is done to make 90 km/h possible again, is my guess.


----------



## Mathias Olsen

metasmurf said:


> I don't know the AADT on the road, but apart from north of Elverum, I would believe the traffic volumes don't justify any major improvements, outside widening to 8,5m. There's just too little local traffic. I drove Alvdal - Tynset this summer, and it was far from busy.
> 
> Again, it comes down to politics. The whole stretch could have 90 with a little widening, getting rid of some intersections, building some parallel roads for local traffic, fixing curves etc, but that would be pretty much politically incorrect in these times.


There should come clarity from politicians to design missing links of the main road between Oslo and Trondheim. For decades upgrades are on both E6 and Rv 3, and as a consequence, all the candidates are rather substandard. It will be better for all who drive from Oslo to Trondheim to have a decent road, with as much 2+1 or even full motorway, and to invest all improvement in one road. Perhaps it may take one or more decades to build such a road.


----------



## metasmurf

*Video of the new E6 Frya - Sjoa*

Found this video of the new E6 between Frya - Sjoa (33 km) in Gudbrandsdalen: https://www.nrk.no/ho/bli-med-og-provekjor-nye-e6-1.13049874. The new road opens in December.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

The slope of 'Mannen' in Romsdalen near Åndalsnes is being evacuated again. It's one of the most unstable mountains of Norway.

I drove by it in June. I stayed on the campsite Trollveggen which is located below the highest vertical overhanging wall in Europe (1100 m). There were small avalanches every few hours. Luckily there was a river between the wall and the campsite. Trollveggen and Mannen are very close to each other.


E136 Mannen by European Roads, on Flickr


----------



## Þróndeimr

ChrisZwolle said:


> The slope of 'Mannen' in Romsdalen near Åndalsnes is being evacuated again. It's one of the most unstable mountains of Norway.
> 
> I drove by it in June. I stayed on the campsite Trollveggen which is located below the highest vertical overhanging wall in Europe (1100 m). There were small avalanches every few hours. Luckily there was a river between the wall and the campsite. Trollveggen and Mannen are very close to each other.
> 
> 
> E136 Mannen by European Roads, on Flickr


The pieces of rock that is on the move is about 120-180 000 cubic meters, and has slided 60cm so far the last three months. However, due to the last days of intense rain it has reached the speed of 7cm just today! This rockfall will be large, but most of these masses will not reach the railroad or the houses, but smaller rocks and debre might reach the river which is why they evacuate everyone at Lyngheim, Rønningen and Lyngheimsgjerdet.

The piece of rock on the move is a small part high up on B in this map. Section A, B and C is what makes up the entire moving part of Mannen (100 million cubic meters). Section A has a speed of about 10cm pr year. Section B has a speed of 5cm pr year. Section C has a speed of less than 1cm pr year. Its expected that section A and B will fall down within the year of 2100. When they do they will destroy today's railroad-line, European rout 136, several farms and houses and dam up the Rauma river for a while. A potential breakup might be catastrophic for the city of Åndalsnes 5km further down the river.

*Section A*: 2-4 million m3 *Section A+B*: 15-25 million M3 *Section A, B and C*: 100 million m3









This is how the minor slide (120-180 000m3) is expected to behave. The figure to the left shows the number of rocks, the figure in the middle show the height of the falling/bouncing rocks and the last figure shows the energy. However, this figures shows a 40 000m3 slide, and with dry rocks. Its expected that water and mud will push the slide further, possibly all the way to the river.









A small video from a 10 000m3 rockfall at Mannen/Børa in 2007


----------



## Mathias Olsen

metasmurf said:


> Found this video of the new E6 between Frya - Sjoa (33 km) in Gudbrandsdalen: https://www.nrk.no/ho/bli-med-og-provekjor-nye-e6-1.13049874. The new road opens in December.


This new upgrade on E6 with grade separated 2+1, E6 section saves 11 minutes. Together with other upgrades Lillehammer-Otta and the upcoming upgrade to motorway of Kolomoen-Lillehammer (saves 12 minutes), the E6 may become faster than Rv 3. After the upgrades the E6 will at least be safer because of longer sections with a central barrier and grade separated road.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

'gas in tunnel'. Very good for the peace of mind of people who don't like driving through tunnels 










It's the Ibestad Tunnel near Hamnvik in Troms. It is a 3.4 kilometer long undersea tunnel with no ventilation. It features 10% grades. There are periodically high levels of NO2.


----------



## Suburbanist

How's that even allowed? Is it an old tunnel?


----------



## italystf

^^ One day I had the bad idea to cross by foot a 450m long tunnel. It was allowed and there was even a sidewalk for pedestrians. Very bad idea. Air inside was almost unbreathable (and it wasn't even at rush hour), so I ran the fastest I could to get out as soon as possible. It would have been wiser to walk that 1km+ around the hill or to catch a bus across the tunnel.


----------



## MattiG

Suburbanist said:


> How's that even allowed? Is it an old tunnel?


The image shows 2000 as the year of construction.

The EU tunnel directive does not enforce ventilation in tunnels where the AADT is less than 2000.


----------



## italystf

Suburbanist said:


> How's that even allowed? Is it an old tunnel?


It says 2000 on the tunnel entry.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

The tunnel opened on 2 December 2000, so it is not really old. The average traffic is less than 600 vehicles per day. 

I'm not sure if the EU tunnel directive even applies to tunnels outside the TEN-T routes. Of course countries could create legislation to copy the EU directive to all tunnels (the Netherlands did that).


----------



## ElviS77

^^

We've at least sort of adapted the EU directive, but since we've got so many older tunnels, low AADT tunnels will not be prioritized. However, this is not the only tunnel where cycling is banned due to possible high levels of gas. With an increased number of cycling tourists, this is basically a precaution. It's also worth noting that many Norwegian tunnels are fairly steep and narrow. Thus, cycling is not sensible even when gas levels are acceptable.


----------



## ElviS77

Walking through Oslo's streets, I started thinking about another interesting aspect of Norway's traffic policies over the years. Not only is the road network in need of a serious makeover, our cars are fairly old as well, and these things are at least in part connected. Cars were seen as a luxury item even after regular sales were permitted in 1960, and therefore they have been taxed fairly heavily ever since. Even in the last couple of decades, when the average Norwegian's economy has gone from not just being fairly good to being top of the world, cars are still expensive compared to most Western countries, particularly so when it comes to more powerful car models.

As a consequence, Norwegians have in general leaned towards buying less powerful versions of a particular make and model, but back when I grew up in the 70s and 80s, the impact wasn't particularly significant. People didn't necessarily buy the 90 hp 1.6 instead of the 100 hp 2.0 "top of the range" model - prices weren't that different. Some bought smaller 50-60 hp models, some went for Golf-style 75 hp hatchbacks, and if you were a little bit better off, you bought a Volvo 240 turning out a massive 100+ hp.... Of course, we had our share of upper-middle-class people as well who, depending on their age, went mad with BMWs and Mercedeses (or GTI models)... but even those weren't that powerful back in the day - leaving M5s, S classes and such aside, there were few models in the 200 hp class. And only Porsches and Italian supercars turned out more than that, and those were off limits even for most non-Norwegians...

So, what am I getting at? Well, back in the day, before oil wealth had turned us into mini sheiks, even car engines were fairly social democratic. Oh, how things have changed... Today, no car maker dares not to go for POWER, even on regular family car alternatives. Nothing wrong with that, but it completely changed the game for the average Norwegian motorist - engine capacity and power outpur are both heavily taxed. Thus, the current "1.6" (its actual size has probably decreased...) is not that different from the 80s - 110-140 hp, perhaps, and given the fact that the current model is almost twice as heavy, there's nothing wrong with that slight bump. However, the top-range thingy is most likely a 300+ hp beast, and even the typical mid-range model that most Europeans are likely to choose has 160-200 hp. Suddenly, horsepower matters, since the top-range thing is twice, possibly three times as expensive as the (already expensive) base model. GTI cars are even worse, now closing in on 300 hp...

How on earth, then, can an average, now more affluent, Norwegian show his (yes, we're still talking a "he", even in our reasonably equal society...) status without breaking the bank? The answer has traditionally been fairly straightforward: he buys the entry level model and specks it to the max... In the past, you either bought a GL or a GLT (this is still Volvo land...), getting extra engine power as a part of the package. Today, you buy a D2 instead of a D5, fill it up with all extras you can imagine and off you go.

As a keen - albeit sensible - driver, I've never fully understood this. Engine power and car setup are more important than fancy gadgets, and if you can't afford a V70, you need to get a different car, not the diet version! Personally, I've solved this by buying used cars, but other people have started thinking in a different way: they have become "environmentalists". I'm not making fun here, environmental protection, combating climate change, improving urban living, recycling etc are of course the most important challenges of our age, I'm merely suggesting that the rise of the eco-friendly car sales in Norway has little to do with actual environmental concern. 

What happened? First of all, CO2 emissions became an important factor when taxing cars. First, hybrids came, and since they - according to manufacturer's data - were far kinder on the environment than their petrol- or diesel-powered cousins (the fact that many similarly Powered, yet frugal, diesel - and later even petrol - engines were as good or better in real life, didn't matter...). For most of the world, though, Priuses and their like were fashion statements - "oh, I'm such an environmentalist champion" - and even when more interesting models arrived, it took some time for them to get market shares. Well-known facts, but still bringing different consequenses up here. Because of the high taxes, these cars were considerably less expensive than their oil-burning counterparts - and the Norwegian driver could suddenly get both power and gadgets when showing his new riches to the world. 

So what about all the Teslas? To begin with, electric cars weren't very popular here either. Since they were useless, small pieces of sh*t with no range at all, even money issues didn't really make that much of a difference. Tesla was a game-changer. Suddenly, you could buy a powerful, big luxury saloon for not much more than midsize car money - for a decent-spec Volvo S60 D4, you're looking at north of 500,000 NOK. A Tesla Model S 60 is yours if you add not much more than 100,000. Of course, that's an entry-level Tesla and it's certainly more money, but you're still in the same ballpark... The results have been spectacular, of course, Tesla sales are through the roof.

You might ask yourself what I'm really getting at here, particularly if I add that I'm sceptical about the real environmental value of current electric cars. My main point is, I think, this: If you want people to behave differently, you need to make it seem like a good idea to them. We Norwegians don't buy Teslas, Nissan Leafs etc hand over fist because they get to drive in bus lanes, we don't buy them because they're that much better cars than the alternatives and we certainly don't buy them because we're particularly environmentally friendly: we buy them because it feels like a good deal to get more for less. The result is that we as a people have started believing there are good alternatives to petrol and diesel. That makes a difference when politicians/the world's resources/science eventually put an end to non-renewable energy driving - we're already used to the idea. Not because we liked the environment so much, but because we eventually were fed up with the idea of under-powered family cars!


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Interesting thoughts. When I visited Norway, I noticed the large volume of old cars, you can easily spot the pre-2006 license plate format. Also outside the larger urban areas, large pickup trucks and SUVs seemed more common than EL-plated cars. 

Electric cars are more environmentally sound in Norway than many other places, given that all electricity is produced through renewable energy. Though the success of the electric car is virtually entirely due to tax incentives, almost nowhere is the market so distorted as in Norway.


----------



## MattiG

ChrisZwolle said:


> I'm not sure if the EU tunnel directive even applies to tunnels outside the TEN-T routes.


No, it does not. Still it is often referred to as a best practice.


----------



## MattiG

ElviS77 said:


> We've at least sort of adapted the EU directive, but since we've got so many older tunnels, low AADT tunnels will not be prioritized. However, this is not the only tunnel where cycling is banned due to possible high levels of gas. With an increased number of cycling tourists, this is basically a precaution. It's also worth noting that many Norwegian tunnels are fairly steep and narrow. Thus, cycling is not sensible even when gas levels are acceptable.


A tunnel forbidden to cyclist is not uncommon in Norway. The https://www.vegvesen.no/vegkart/vegkart shows 1166 tunnels. 413 of those are forbidden to cyclist. In addition, there are 118 tunnels having no data.


----------



## ElviS77

ChrisZwolle said:


> Interesting thoughts. When I visited Norway, I noticed the large volume of old cars, you can easily spot the pre-2006 license plate format. Also outside the larger urban areas, large pickup trucks and SUVs seemed more common than EL-plated cars.
> 
> Electric cars are more environmentally sound in Norway than many other places, given that all electricity is produced through renewable energy. Though the success of the electric car is virtually entirely due to tax incentives, almost nowhere is the market so distorted as in Norway.


For many Norwegians, myself included, a ten-year-old car isn't particularly old. Of course, since cars are expensive even considering our wages, we tend to maintain them reasonably well, and getting a "good" used car with a meticulous service record isn't that hard. Still expensive, though, I thought I got an OK deal when I bought my 2004 S60 (yes, even I'm driving a Volvo these days...) for 145,000 NOK three years ago. However, we're talking more than 15,000 Euros, and even though it hasn't put a foot wrong, "cheap" is not a word I would use. My reasoning was that I needed a new car, and when I wanted something decent to drive long distances, that money for 180 hp, all-leather interior, excellent seats, climate control, towbar, quality stereo etc was reasonable. I almost wouldn't even get a brand new car for that. Again, acceptable power and driveability are more important to me than to most...

Of course, electric cars make more sense in Norway than most places, and they are spectacular in terms of local pollution. However, battery technology is far from sorted - not exactly environmentally friendly when it comes to production, and there's still the nagging charging issue (albeit gradual improvements are made). We will probably see some kind of propulsion revolution (hydrogen, electric, who knows...) in the near or distant future, in the mean time, a variation of solutions is the way forward, I believe. No matter where we'll end, though, the best way forward is to give people the right incentives. And they are rarely if ever exactly the ones politicians think they are...


----------



## ElviS77

MattiG said:


> A tunnel forbidden to cyclist is not uncommon in Norway. The https://www.vegvesen.no/vegkart/vegkart shows 1166 tunnels. 413 of those are forbidden to cyclist. In addition, there are 118 tunnels having no data.


And even in many of those where cycling is not explicitly banned, it's debatable whether it's very sensible to take your bike...


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

Mathias Olsen said:


> This new upgrade on E6 with grade separated 2+1, E6 section saves 11 minutes. Together with other upgrades Lillehammer-Otta and the upcoming upgrade to motorway of Kolomoen-Lillehammer (saves 12 minutes), the E6 may become faster than Rv 3. After the upgrades the E6 will at least be safer because of longer sections with a central barrier and grade separated road.


No. The difference in length between the main alternatives is about 40 km (there are shortcuts in terms of distance with lower road standards for both routes). With regards to driving time, the difference is about 40 minutes according to Google maps tonight , which is likely to be higher during daytime / periods with higher traffic. This is true despite the long section with roadworks on Rv 3,which has made me choose the even shorter alternative via Rendalen (fv 30) lately. In addition, E6 has much larger elevation differences than Rv 3, which is highly undesirable for trucks, and there are also fewer places where it is possible to pass, and higher number of speed cameras. As noted above, there are not many (mostly locals) that strictly follows the speed limit on Rv 3. Hence it is no wonder that Rv 3 is the most popular (and increasingly so) alternative of the two routes, and rv 3 is the completely dominating alternative among the professionals. 

Although the long due improvements on E6 are positive, it should be remembered that also Rv 3 is gradually improved. In terms of travel time the next big improvement will be the motorway developments south-west of Elverum. Now also talks have started regarding a tunnel through Lonåsen (highest point), which may save even more time. 

Of course, I think the whole Rv 3 should be expanded to a motorway, cutting nominal travel time by at least 30%....


----------



## ElviS77

^^

The rv 3 is undoubtably faster and will remain so even with motorway and expressway standard on the E6 to Otta (the only reason I didn't do Rendalen last week was that I forgot about the road works going north and was concerned about my cargo coming back down again...). However, the E6 will become a more viable alternative when it's slightly shortened and made far safer and quicker. Not so much for HGVs, though, because as you mention, the Dovre plateau remains, and that's not going to go anywhere anytime soon...


----------



## metasmurf

54°26′S 3°24′E;134669081 said:


> No. The difference in length between the main alternatives is about 40 km (there are shortcuts in terms of distance with lower road standards for both routes). With regards to driving time, the difference is about 40 minutes according to Google maps tonight , which is likely to be higher during daytime / periods with higher traffic. This is true despite the long section with roadworks on Rv 3,which has made me choose the even shorter alternative via Rendalen (fv 30) lately. In addition, E6 has much larger elevation differences than Rv 3, which is highly undesirable for trucks, and there are also fewer places where it is possible to pass, and higher number of speed cameras. As noted above, there are not many (mostly locals) that strictly follows the speed limit on Rv 3. Hence it is no wonder that Rv 3 is the most popular (and increasingly so) alternative of the two routes, and rv 3 is the completely dominating alternative among the professionals.
> 
> Although the long due improvements on E6 are positive, it should be remembered that also Rv 3 is gradually improved. In terms of travel time the next big improvement will be the motorway developments south-west of Elverum. Now also talks have started regarding a tunnel through Lonåsen (highest point), which may save even more time.
> 
> But hey, if a project like Ryfast got approved there's always hope
> 
> But hey, if a project like Ryfast could make it there's always hope
> 
> Of course, I think the whole Rv 3 should be expanded to a motorway, cutting nominal travel time by at least 30%....


Motorway? Really?

I found these numbers from 2011.










Source: http://www.vegvesen.no/_attachment/263393/binary/467328

Even if we assume 500 more vehicles per day have been added since 2011, and let's assume 500 additional vehicles who will choose RV 3 to avoid tolls on the new E6 in Gudbrandsdalen you still don't even get numbers justifying building anything with midtrekkverk north of Rena according to Vegvesenets guidlines for roadstandards.

A slightly more realistic approach would be building a divided 2+1 without grade separated intersections, like E4 in north Sweden where some sections have as low as 4000 AADT. This would work very well in Österdalen where the population density is similar (or lower), thus building grade separated intersections there would be a waste of money . However, E4 in north Sweden already had 13m wide sections where you basically could just re-paint the road and put up a barrier.

Taking numbers from a widening project on E4 the cost of widening a stretch of 9km from 9m to 14m is 133 million SEK. With that in mind, the price of widening the ~230km from Ulbserg to Rena would be pretty significant. Making calculations where that would make sense economically would be a challenge, but way easier than justifying a motorway.


----------



## Mathias Olsen

54°26′S 3°24′E;134669081 said:


> Of course, I think the whole Rv 3 should be expanded to a motorway, cutting nominal travel time by at least 30%....


Yes, Trondheim and the whole North should require Rv 3 as the main road from Oslo to Trondheim, which means that all motorway upgrades should be on Rv 3 and not on E6. 



ElviS77 said:


> However, the E6 will become a more viable alternative when it's slightly shortened and made far safer and quicker. Not so much for HGVs, though, because as you mention, the Dovre plateau remains, and that's not going to go anywhere anytime soon...


Indeed, what we see is an upgrade from year to year on E6. Will it really end at Otta? Truck road traffic to Dombås is almost the same as to Otta, see: http://www.vegvesen.no/_attachment/263393/binary/467328 (thanks to metasmurf). So it is not impossible that E6 will be improved till Dombås, serving Alesund and Molde. It is also likely there will be a motorway Trondheim-Ulsberg within a decade, serving both E6 and Rv 3. But then we have on the E6 only a missing motorway link of 80 km. A temptation to close this link and not to upgrade complete Rv 3 for a much higher budget.


----------



## MattiG

ElviS77 said:


> And even in many of those where cycling is not explicitly banned, it's debatable whether it's very sensible to take your bike...


Agree. For example, some on the tunnels on E69 to Nordkapp are pretty frightening to even passenger cars drivers. Narrow, without shoulders and shelter space, not very well illuminated. But permitted to cyclists.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

metasmurf said:


> Motorway? Really?
> 
> I found these numbers from 2011.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Source: http://www.vegvesen.no/_attachment/263393/binary/467328
> 
> Even if we assume 500 more vehicles per day have been added since 2011, and let's assume 500 additional vehicles who will choose RV 3 to avoid tolls on the new E6 in Gudbrandsdalen you still don't even get numbers justifying building anything with midtrekkverk north of Rena according to Vegvesenets guidlines for roadstandards.
> 
> A slightly more realistic approach would be building a divided 2+1 without grade separated intersections, like E4 in north Sweden where some sections have as low as 4000 AADT. This would work very well in Österdalen where the population density is similar (or lower), thus building grade separated intersections there would be a waste of money . However, E4 in north Sweden already had 13m wide sections where you basically could just re-paint the road and put up a barrier.
> 
> Taking numbers from a widening project on E4 the cost of widening a stretch of 9km from 9m to 14m is 133 million SEK. With that in mind, the price of widening the ~230km from Ulbserg to Rena would be pretty significant. Making calculations where that would make sense economically would be a challenge, but way easier than justifying a motorway.


I wrote nothing about Ryfast ;-)

Closer to the real topic:
I strongly disagree with you. The traffic increase would be far higher than 500 cars if a motorway is built. Most of the traffic across E6-Dovre will probably be transferred (currently close to 2000 AADT), in addition a significant part of the air traffic (5 500 Pax per day) and rail traffic will be transferred. In addition some additional traffic most likely will be generated due to drastically shortened travel time. To me, 7000 in total AADT at the least trafficated sections sounds like a conservative estimate, even if general traffic growth is not taken into account. However, this topic has been discussed here time and again for many years now, and I do not feel like opening that can of worms tonight more than I already have. If you really feel like it, you can revisit the 8 year old discussion over multiple pages on this topic. Nothing has substantially changed since then except that the traffic has increased:
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?p=24700306&highlight=rv3#post24700306

Updated traffic numbers can btw be found here:
https://www.vegvesen.no/vegkart/vegkart/ 

With regards to the cost, by using the Swedish numbers the total cost for widening to 14 m will be 133*230/9=3 300 millions. If this scales to Norwegian narrow motorway width (20 m) and taking into account that Rv3 still is somewhat narrower than 9 m, the cost will be 133*230/9*(20-8)/(14-9) MSEK=8.2 BSEK. I actually think that is a small cost for such a huge improvement in national infrastructure. Of course, with a motorway, the alignment may have to be improved which will add costs, but on long sections geometry is already pretty decent on Rv 3. The number of intersections and additional local roads needed is also low due the moderate population density. On the other hand, the cost for the widening itself is likely to scale less than proportionally to the width.

However, that some of us think that a Norwegian national motorway network would be a good idea does not make it happen tomorrow....




Mathias Olsen said:


> Yes, Trondheim and the whole North should require Rv 3 as the main road from Oslo to Trondheim, which means that all motorway upgrades should be on Rv 3 and not on E6.
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, what we see is an upgrade from year to year on E6. Will it really end at Otta? Truck road traffic to Dombås is almost the same as to Otta, see: http://www.vegvesen.no/_attachment/263393/binary/467328 (thanks to metasmurf). So it is not impossible that E6 will be improved till Dombås, serving Alesund and Molde. It is also likely there will be a motorway Trondheim-Ulsberg within a decade, serving both E6 and Rv 3. But then we have on the E6 only a missing motorway link of 80 km. A temptation to close this link and not to upgrade complete Rv 3 for a much higher budget.


No motorway is planned to Dombås AFAIK (not yet Trondheim-Ulsberg, either, unfortunately, only 2+1 separated road from Støren-Ulsberg). The Dovre Plateau is not a good alternative for a motorway as it is weather exposed, and as already mentioned has steep and long hills in both ends. IN addition, it is an environmental sensitive area with wild reindeer. Eliminating these issues will require a very expensive tunnel. Hence it makes much more sense to close the 225-230 km gap (depending on routes) rather than the 110 km Dombås/Ulsberg gap, when and if motorways are built to either Dombås or Rena from the south. And as discussed, the total travel time Trondheim-Oslo is shorter if the detour to Dombås is avoided.


----------



## ElviS77

^^

Quite interesting to reread what we stated all those years ago, actually, and even more interesting to see the predictions I was right about (not so much fun to see the many more which haven't become reality, though...). I'm certainly not revisiting those days, but my main point still stands: we need and will see improvements along both corridors, but any full-profile Oslo-Trondheim motorway is highly unlikely - even far into the future. The more important thing, in my book, is how good and how much improvement we will actually see...

There's nothing wrong with the current widening of the rv 3, apart from the fact that it'll put real improvement (both in terms of travel speed and safety) even further into the future. If they'd gone for a 1+1/2+1 solution, I'd be cheering all the way to Alvdal, but - as I suggested a few days ago - the current program only invites speeding on a still not very safe road. An AADT of less than 3000 isn't that high, certainly not to foreigners, but when HGVs make up 20% of the traffic, it's a slightly different story. But that's what we're going to get, I'm afraid...

Those of you who time-traveled back to 2008 will have noticed my scepticism for some Swedish non-expressway divided roads. You may ask yourselves, then, why I support similar on-the-cheap solutions along current alignments in Norway... The main reason is that even if I was and still am sceptical to busy (AADT 10000+) roads with a relatively high number of intersections, I approve of and applaud them in more rural scenarios. I still question farming and forestry exits, though, and major intersections do require lowered speed limits - or roundabouts.

To sum up, I still fear we'll see gradual improvements along most main roads in Norway. In most places, that kind of development makes sense, at least if we speed it up, but along the most important corridors, that, too, is counterproductive and leads to less safe and efficient roads...


----------



## italystf

MattiG said:


> Agree. For example, some on the tunnels on E69 to Nordkapp are pretty frightening to even passenger cars drivers. Narrow, without shoulders and shelter space, not very well illuminated. But permitted to cyclists.


I don't think that AADT on E69 is so high, if compared to main roads in the South, like Oslo-Trondheim, Oslo-Bergen, Oslo-Stavanger, Oslo-Alesund, etc...


----------



## metasmurf

54°26′S 3°24′E;134688002 said:


> Closer to the real topic:
> I strongly disagree with you. The traffic increase would be far higher than 500 cars if a motorway is built. Most of the traffic across E6-Dovre will probably be transferred (currently close to 2000 AADT)


Most trucks Trondheim - Oslo already drive on RV3 and probably most cars as well. So, since a majority of the traffic has already moved over from E6, making the assumption that most of the 2000 AADT from E6 can be added to RV 3 is invalid. Traffic on E6 Dovrefjell have other destinations than just Trondheim - Oslo.



54°26′S 3°24′E;134688002 said:


> , in addition a significant part of the air traffic (5 500 Pax per day) and rail traffic will be transferred. In addition some additional traffic most likely will be generated due to drastically shortened travel time. To me, 7000 in total AADT at the least trafficated sections sounds like a conservative estimate, even if general traffic growth is not taken into account. However, this topic has been discussed here time and again for many years now, and I do not feel like opening that can of worms tonight more than I already have. If you really feel like it, you can revisit the 8 year old discussion over multiple pages on this topic. Nothing has substantially changed since then except that the traffic has increased:
> http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?p=24700306&highlight=rv3#post24700306


Let's compare Stockholm - Gothenburg with Oslo - Trondheim

*Population city / region*

Stockholm 1 372 565 / 2 239 217

Gothenburg 549 789 / 984 761

-------------------------------------

Oslo 958 378 / 1 442 318 

Trondheim 187 353 / 279 234

--------------------------------------

*Driving distance*

Stockholm - Gothenburg E4/RV40 469km
Oslo - Trondheim RV3 494km 

---------------------------------------

Out of the 469km on E4/RV40, 429km have motorway standard. The remaining 40km stretch is a divided 2+1 with 100km/h. According to Google Maps, it takes 4h 47min (4h 23min with no traffic) to drive the whole stretch.










Source: http://www.trafikverket.se/contentassets/b5d083b0071e40cf8a07e5f10fc6d36f/rapport_kommersiella_forutsattningar_hoghastighetstag.pdf

This shows a couple of things. 

- Most importantly, only 4400 people travel by car between the two cities even though the majority of the road has motorway standard. Between Oslo - Trondheim the numbers would obviously be lower, probably less than half. 

- Even when the travel time for trains between the cities is only 3:30 and the road is almost entirely motorway , air travel still has a significant market share.

- Another factor is that outside of the congestion charge fees, (the amount varies depending on the time of the day, but 57 SEK is the sum of the highest fees in both cities combined), there are no additional fees. E6 on both ends of RV3 is a different story. Already today the toll fees driving E6/RV3/E6 add up to 178 NOK, and once the projects E6 Melhus - Ulsberg and Rv. 3 /rv. 25 Løten–Elverum gets finished the situation will get even worse. 

I found this in the KS2 report for Ryfast. A KS2 report is made for all road projects over 750 million NOK in Norway by independent consultants before getting passed in Stortinget. Basically the report said Ryfast should not be built, but somehow (corruption?) it got the go ahead from Stortinget. The main argument for not building Ryfast in the report was the high toll fees needed for the project to be economically sustainable. 










Source: http://docplayer.me/14286227-Ks2-endelig-rapport-rv-13-ryfast-e39-eiganestunnelen-og-forlengelse-av-nord-jaeren-pakken.html

With that in mind, the scope for adding additional tolls on Rv3 to finance a motorway I would assume to be pretty much non-existent. Additional tolls would logically push even more people towards flying, or not making the trip at all. 100% state funding is extremely unlikely, given how unprofitable this project would be.

I could also make arguments for what a waste of money it would be to build a motorway through Østerdalen with a population of 50 906 but that's enough for one post.


----------



## Nikolaj

Just a small comment to the table on various travel modes between Gothenburg and Stockholm. I guess the number of cars travelling from Gothenburg to Stockholm is even smaller than you indicate. The table talks of 4400"resor" a day, which you translate into 4400 cars a day. That is not correct since you probably will find an average of 1,3-1,4 passenger per car, and maybe even higher on such a long distance trip. A more correct number of cars, when you have 4400 resor/trips per day by car is probably around 3000 cars/day. But it only underlines you point of relatively few cars between 2 relatively big cities, when you have a distance of 400-500 km.


----------



## berlinwroclaw

54°26′S 3°24′E;134688002 said:


> However, that some of us think that a Norwegian national motorway network would be a good idea does not make it happen tomorrow....


Therefore it is good to see that a motorway Kolomoen-Elverum is in the current National Transport Plan and also some upgrades south of Trondheim. However it is sad there are no online studies, websites, blog who promote a motorway Trondheim-Oslo. For an East-West motorway or something close to that, dozens of such resources are online.

Best hope will be plans for as many 2+1 grade separated by-passes of villages and towns on Rv 3 and then finally complete a full 2+1 road. When traffic increases finally an upgrade to motorway will be possible. 

When Norway comes closer to 2040, the end of the oil times, the need will grow for fast import and export roads, they may abandon toll to compete with other European countries.


----------



## metasmurf

Nikolaj said:


> Just a small comment to the table on various travel modes between Gothenburg and Stockholm. I guess the number of cars travelling from Gothenburg to Stockholm is even smaller than you indicate. The table talks of 4400"resor" a day, which you translate into 4400 cars a day. That is not correct since you probably will find an average of 1,3-1,4 passenger per car, and maybe even higher on such a long distance trip. A more correct number of cars, when you have 4400 resor/trips per day by car is probably around 3000 cars/day. But it only underlines you point of relatively few cars between 2 relatively big cities, when you have a distance of 400-500 km.


Yeah you're right, thanks for pointing this out. Was too early in the morning when I wrote the post


----------



## coolstuff

When the Ministry of Transport is not willing to speed up motorway construction on Rv 3, we have to look for other sponsors, such as the Ministry of Defense. Norway is the military superpower within the Nordic, because it has F35 stealth fighters. When Rv 3 sections close to the Swedish border will become a motorway with removable barriers, it will be ideal landing strips for the F35’s to protect our Nordic neighbors. 










Of course the new Rv 3 motorway sections will be sponsored by the Ministry of Defense and that will help to fill the motorway gap Rv 3 Trondheim-Oslo.


----------



## MattiG

italystf said:


> I don't think that AADT on E69 is so high, if compared to main roads in the South, like Oslo-Trondheim, Oslo-Bergen, Oslo-Stavanger, Oslo-Alesund, etc...


AADT of 3 is enough to make trouble if two trucks happen to meet at the same spot as the poor cyclist is.

AADT in general has less to do with the tunnel safe for cyclists. The quality of air is the key issue. At the lowest point of the submarine tunnels at the depth of 200+ metres, the Carbon Monoxide concentration may turn harmful for cyclists.


----------



## italystf

^^ So a future motorway Oslo-Trondheim will follow Rv3 instead of E6?
At this point, why not to realign E6 along the current Rv3, that is 40km shorter?


----------



## Mathias Olsen

italystf said:


> ^^ So a future motorway Oslo-Trondheim will follow Rv3 instead of E6?



True. When the E6 motorway will go over Dombås and Driva, it has to pass a 71 km plateau at an altitude of 1000 m. Constructing a motorway at 1000 m is considered in Norway as not a best practice, because you cannot guarantee snowfree pass and the trucks have to climb 800 m, an environmental burden. On the steep roads you will be confronted with very slow moving trucks, a safety risk. A tunnel will cost 20+ billion. Consider that Rv 3 will be 40 km shorter from Ulsberg to Kolomoen, and the choice for your favorite motorway upgrade is an easy one: Rv 3.



italystf said:


> At this point, why not to realign E6 along the current Rv3, that is 40km shorter?


Realigning E6 is very, very difficult in Norway. Even the E-numbers organization wasn't able to force Norway to change the E6 number, because it is so deep rooted in Norwegian culture. Maybe Rv 3 will get a new E-number?


----------



## Mathias Olsen

Nikolaj said:


> Just a small comment to the table on various travel modes between Gothenburg and Stockholm. I guess the number of cars travelling from Gothenburg to Stockholm is even smaller than you indicate. The table talks of 4400"resor" a day, which you translate into 4400 cars a day. That is not correct since you probably will find an average of 1,3-1,4 passenger per car, and maybe even higher on such a long distance trip. A more correct number of cars, when you have 4400 resor/trips per day by car is probably around 3000 cars/day. But it only underlines you point of relatively few cars between 2 relatively big cities, when you have a distance of 400-500 km.


Thanks for this sharp analysis. It will feed hope to all in Norway who are looking forward for improved fast and safe roads. Sweden is an important example. On the already approved new E39 motorway Sandnes-Lyngdal the traffic prediction was 6000-8000 AADT, a minimum record. Your Swedish example opens new perspectives


----------



## OulaL

MattiG said:


> Agree. For example, some on the tunnels on E69 to Nordkapp are pretty frightening to even passenger cars drivers. Narrow, without shoulders and shelter space, not very well illuminated. But permitted to cyclists.


I assume there is some kind of a philosophy that any given address (with motorway service areas possibly excluded) must be within reach by any given vehicle class; so banning bicycles would require introduction of a ferry service. The demand is probably so small that simply allowing bicycles in the tunnel and assuming they are aware of the risks (and probably forget the idea in the first place) is the least troublesome solution.

Not sure whether that philosophy works in other parts of the country, though.


----------



## Mathias Olsen

*Progress E39 motorway Eiganestunnel Stavanger*

Eiganestunnel is a city tunnel in Stavanger that connects the Rogfast tunnels to Haugesund with the Ryfast motorway tunnel to Tau and the E39 motorway to Kristiansand.










Construction of the Eiganestunnel is within the Ryfast project. 










It is part of the E39 motorway Stavanger-Bergen and Stavanger-Røldal-Oslo.










Eiganestunnel fills the missing link of the Northern E39 Stavanger motorway bypass. The 4-lane tunnel has a T 9,5 profile. With the tunnel, the E39 motorway Stavanger-Haugesund will be extended with 4 km. The predicted AADT is 35 000 in 2035. 










Construction started in 2012 and on August 8, 2016, work on the this tunnel is in a final stage. Now some additional work, like technical buildings, ventilators, fiber cable, radar detectors for traffic management and cameras are waiting to be installed. Opening of the tunnel will not be earlier than 2018. Interesting part is an underground motorway interchange with Rv 13 to Tau.


----------



## coolstuff

Automatic Toll Stations in Norway

Paying toll on a motorway is always annoying. It can be worse, when you have to wait in a row to pay at toll plazas, like in e.g. Italy. Norway has introduced automatic toll stations or ‘open road tolling’. All vehicles don’t have to stop, which doesn’t make toll cheaper, but a lot easier. Other countries in Europe, such as Germany and the Netherlands tried in the past to implement such an automatic system for cars less than 3,5 t, but because of problems with governance and technical issues they failed.
Many motorway construction sections are financed by tolls. There is a pre-determined percentage of the total construction costs of toll collection that should be applied. When the payments are done, the motorway will be toll-free. Because of the growth of traffic, this is often years earlier than according to the schedule.










Invoices for cars registered in other countries are issued by Euro Parking Collection (EPC), which uses other countries' car registers to find the name and address of the car owner. The invoice is paid to EPC, an authorised service provider in London with authority to issue invoices to vehicle owners registered outside the jurisdiction of the issuing authority. Instead of waiting for the invoice, you can to pay online within three days after passing:










In Oslo there are flexible toll prices. You are charged every time you drive into Oslo, in 2016 an amount of NOK 32 when your car is below 3,5 t. When you leave Oslo, you don’t have to pay. Oslo's toll plazas are ‘open road tolling’. All vehicles shall drive through without stopping.

AutoPASS tag is a subscription, that makes payments easier. Without AutoPass tag, you pay after passing with the car registration number. It is photographed upon passing and the owner will receive an invoice by post within 3 months.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

The Netherlands tried to implement a different system, basically a mileage tax. Every single kilometer driven would've been taxed, with higher rates during rush hour. It also wasn't a special purpose tax, unlike the Norwegian tolling system which is used to fund roads and transit. The Dutch mileage tax would just be another tax for the government coffers. The proposal was very unpopular among the electorate and it was postponed and later scrapped. Some left-wing parties still want to pursue it.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Just for fun I was calculating how much a Tesla Model S P90 Ludicrous would cost in taxes if they had to pay the same taxes as fuel cars.

In this case there are two tax types;

* weight tax
* engine power tax

The NOx and CO2 tax do not apply.

(tax rates)

The weight tax would be 203 902 NOK / € 22,050
The engine power tax would be 787 355 NOK / € 85,115

So that's a grand total of nearly 1 million NOK in taxes. Or € 107,105. It would basically double the price of the car. :lol:


----------



## Ingenioren

Mathias Olsen said:


>





Anyone find it interesting that the destination signed on Road 13 is a village of 300 inhabitants 200km away :lol:


----------



## berlinwroclaw

Ingenioren said:


> Anyone find it interesting that the destination signed on Road 13 is a village of 300 inhabitants 200km away :lol:


Yes, Røldal is a very small village. But a target on a motorway doesn't have to be a city or a village. It is possible it has another meaning: a mountain pass. Such a thing is not uncommon in Europe. Check out that the village Simplon in Switzerland had in 2014 only 327 inhabitants. But it is on motorway A9 on the same sign as metropole Milano with 1.4 million inhabitants, check it out:










Careful investigation on the E39 motorway sign will reveal that you will see a tunnel sign before Røldal 

Question: when will the Stavanger Arm to Røldal via Rv 13 be improved? A bridge will be needed to make it a ferry-free road. It will be a cry from Stavanger next decade for sure to shorten the trip to Oslo.


----------



## devo

berlinwroclaw said:


> (...)
> 
> Careful investigation on the E39 motorway sign will reveal that you will see a tunnel sign before Røldal


I think that mark after the road number is a Kr symbol, informing that Ryfast (Rv13) is a toll road.


----------



## Rob73

ChrisZwolle said:


> Just for fun I was calculating how much a Tesla Model S P90 Ludicrous would cost in taxes if they had to pay the same taxes as fuel cars.
> 
> In this case there are two tax types;
> 
> * weight tax
> * engine power tax
> 
> The NOx and CO2 tax do not apply.
> 
> (tax rates)
> 
> The weight tax would be 203 902 NOK / € 22,050
> The engine power tax would be 787 355 NOK / € 85,115
> 
> So that's a grand total of nearly 1 million NOK in taxes. Or € 107,105. It would basically double the price of the car. :lol:


It's going to happen very soon, electric cars should not be tax exempt. The curent govt are working towards dropping the power tax, that's a stupid tax if ever there was one.


----------



## Mathias Olsen

berlinwroclaw said:


> Question: when will the Stavanger Arm to Røldal via Rv 13 be improved? A bridge will be needed to make it a ferry-free road. It will be a cry from Stavanger next decade for sure to shorten the trip to Oslo.


Not a good idea to launch Rv 13 to Røldal as a main road from Stavanger to Oslo. It is now already slower than via E39 Haugesund. An upgrade of Rv 13 Tau-Røldal will be again an expensive mission, while Rogaland has already consumed much of the national road budget. Even with a new bridge and several other updates, it will never be snow-free and as safe as the E39 motorway. Rogaland is already on top on road accidents in Norway in 2016. 










In 2023 when E39 motorway Stavanger-Haugesund will be available, the road via E39 will be much faster, snow-free ferry-free and especially much safer. Rogaland should focus first on upgrade of E134 Haugesund-Røldal to motorway.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

How realistic is a motorway from Odda to Bergen really? Judging by the terrain, it's either nearly entirely undergrond, or on bridges. 

It looks like basically a 70 - 80 kilometer long tunnel that is interrupted only briefly for some bridges to cross fjords or valleys.


----------



## Mathias Olsen

ChrisZwolle said:


> How realistic is a motorway from Odda to Bergen really? Judging by the terrain, it's either nearly entirely undergrond, or on bridges.
> 
> It looks like basically a 70 - 80 kilometer long tunnel that is interrupted only briefly for some bridges to cross fjords or valleys.


There is a proposal of economists, business companies and road consultancy companies for a motorway Bergen-Odda. It showed that this motorway is feasible. In that plan the tunnel length is much less than 70 km and there are several options to go from Bergen to Jondal. You can see on one of the proposals below (the most expensive alternative) 8 tunnels with a total length of 45 km. There are cheaper alternatives with much less tunnels.










But this is Norway, not the Netherlands. There is an interaction with the 43 billion Hordfast project Haugesund-Bergen. There is still no approval for Hordfast. A new motorway has been in the past a long process of political decisions and slow upgrades. See E6 Oslo-Lillehammer and E18 Oslo-Kristiansand. A realistic plan therefore starts with a bridge near Jondal and then gradually upgrades of the existing road Odda-Bergen with more and more 2+1 stretches and finally (after some decades) a motorway. But when the time is ripe and there is enough political momentum it may go faster. See E39 Kristiansand-Stavanger.

Just wait a month. The road corridor Bergen-Oslo will be discussed again in parliament with decision making.


----------



## MattiG

Mathias Olsen said:


> Just wait a month. The road corridor Bergen-Oslo will be discussed again in parliament with decision making.


But will that lead to something new? If I have understood correctly, about every cabinet and parliament has discussed the same thing during the last 50 years. Decisions have been made, but the case is still in the NATO mode: No Action, Talk Only.

As the others have pointed out, the regional decision makers have a lot of power in Norway. Therefore, it seems unrealistic to have a single main corridor between Oslo and Bergen: There are at least three competing candidates each having a strong regional support. My guess is that in 2060, there will be three 2+1 roads between the cities, but only a few fractions of motorway.


----------



## berlinwroclaw

MattiG said:


> As the others have pointed out, the regional decision makers have a lot of power in Norway. Therefore, it seems unrealistic to have a single main corridor between Oslo and Bergen: There are at least three competing candidates each having a strong regional support. My guess is that in 2060, there will be three 2+1 roads between the cities, but only a few fractions of motorway.


There is much local power indeed. However the Minister of Transport has limited the number of approved main roads from Bergen to Oslo to only 2. First one is the E134, selected in 2015. Second one will be selected after the summer. The choice is between Rv 7 and Rv 52. The non-selected road won’t have priority with snow cleaning in winter and improvements.

Rv 52 has the best arguments to be selected as second main road, because it is lower and longer snow-free and connects more traffic than Rv 7. But Rv 7 has support of many Conservatives, the biggest political party. When Rv 52 will be selected, a Jondal bridge will be to approved, because it is far from E16/Rv 52. When Rv 7 will be selected, we just have to wait for a new government. A new government will have more people of the younger generation and they are more concerned about the economic future of Norway. Good infrastructure between East and West is part of it. Very likely they will select E134 because it adds more to economy.


----------



## MattiG

berlinwroclaw said:


> There is much local power indeed. However the Minister of Transport has limited the number of approved main roads from Bergen to Oslo to only 2. First one is the E134, selected in 2015. Second one will be selected after the summer. The choice is between Rv 7 and Rv 52. The non-selected road won’t have priority with snow cleaning in winter and improvements.


Hard facts are secondary ones when politicians open their mouth. Minister of transport may decide something, but the future shows how solid that sort of Oslo-based decisions are. I do not believe in any scenario consisting of less than three main corridors, taking the political realities into account.


----------



## MichiH

Heico-M said:


> I travelled the E6 from Malmö to Oslo on Wednesday, July 27.


I traveled E6 from Helsingborg to Oslo on Tuesday, July 26. 



Heico-M said:


> The remaining drive from the Norwegian border to Oslo was really slow because of very dense traffic, including a legitimate traffic jam at the Follotunnelen construction site.


There was more traffic in N compared to northern S but I could cruise close to the allowed speed limit.



Heico-M said:


> It was almost only Norwegian number plates. Are there so many people going to Sweden that it results in such extreme traffic on a weekday?


Yep, I also recognized that there are almost just N number plates from the border but I know this from almost every border in Europe... Dunno why but I think I (and likely many others on this forum) overrate long-distance traffic compared to local traffic especially close to border crossings...


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

With improved infrastructure the northern part of the Swedish west coast is also a very popular holiday destination among people from the Oslo - area, and holiday homes and cabins for sale in the area have almost exclusively gone to Norwegians during the last couple of decades. Hence, the Norwegian population in this area is significant during summer, and probably extremely important for the local economy.

With the decline of the NOK lately, the price differences between Norway and Sweden are much smaller than they used to be, btw, but Nordby at the Swedish side of the border is called "the largest shopping mall of Norway", and hence is probably an interesting destination for local shopaholics anyway.....


----------



## ChrisZwolle

SEK and NOK are almost the same nowadays. They also built a second shopping center along E18 at Töcksfors, I stopped there to get some last-minute cheap fuel before entering Norway, there weren't many customers.


----------



## Shifty2k5

This part of Bohuslän has a low population and is also rather remote for most swedes. 








. 

Swedish average is 21 inhabitants/square kilometer. 

Makes you wonder why the E6 was built to motorway standard before the E4 between Stockholm and Malmö...


----------



## Heico-M

ChrisZwolle said:


> SEK and NOK are almost the same nowadays. They also built a second shopping center along E18 at Töcksfors, I stopped there to get some last-minute cheap fuel before entering Norway, there weren't many customers.


I tried something like the same which resulted in the diesel price in Sweden being 1 kr higher than just across the border in Norway


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Diesel is rather expensive in Sweden, Preem lists it at 12,99 SEK (€ 1.37) currently.

Petrol is *much* cheaper (in euro) this year in Norway than on my trip two years ago. I think the difference is approximately € 0.35 per liter compared to 2014. The decline of the NOK also helped that. 

I didn't care too much about prices though, I always get the lowest consumption in Norway and Sweden, close to 4 L / 100 km. It helps to drive long distances at 80 or 90 km/h while not passing through many towns, roundabouts or other slowdowns.


----------



## MattiG

ChrisZwolle said:


> In a somewhat similar scenario, Scandlines want to compete with the Femern Belt Tunnel between Denmark and Germany once it is completed.


No, this is not a similar scenario. The background of the ferry scenario is that the road access from the Forsand area to Sandnes and Stavanger will be longer and more expensive after the Ryfast is complete. The planned ferry connection would keep the existing Oanes-Lauvvik ferry route which is located 20+ kilometers SW from the Ryfast. Thus, it is not a question of direct competition, because the route is significantly different.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Okay, I thought it was about the ferry to Tau. 

But the Forsand area is sparsely populated. There are only 1,200 people in the kommune, and for traffic to Stavanger, the Ryfylke Tunnel is likely faster than using the ferry and then drive via Sandnes to Stavanger, right? So the ferry would only serve Forsand - Sandnes and points south.


----------



## MattiG

ChrisZwolle said:


> Okay, I thought it was about the ferry to Tau.
> 
> But the Forsand area is sparsely populated. There are only 1,200 people in the kommune, and for traffic to Stavanger, the Ryfylke Tunnel is likely faster than using the ferry and then drive via Sandnes to Stavanger, right? So the ferry would only serve Forsand - Sandnes and points south.


The question is not about time only but money, too. The current ferry price without discounts is NOK 73 (passenger car and driver) while the speculated toll of Ryfast will be around 250-300. Longer time and quadruple cost is a difficult business case 

Of course, there will most probably be no business case to keep the current interval of 30 minutes and all-day traffic. This is known to the people in Forsand area, I believe.

If the private ferry becomes true, the situation will be similar to today: There are two options: the traditional ferry over Rv13 and fast ferry from Tau. The choice depends on where you are going and how much you can spend time.


----------



## metasmurf

It's not just about the 1200 people in Forsand kommune. It will be an attractive connection to the Sandnes/lower Stavanger area for parts of Strands kommune including Jørpeland as the ferry only takes 10 minutes and will be more than twice as cheap as Ryfast. The route has an AADT of 1495 in 2014, which is more than some ferry crossings on E39.


----------



## berlinwroclaw

MattiG said:


> The question is not about time only but money, too. The current ferry price without discounts is NOK 73 (passenger car and driver) while the speculated toll of Ryfast will be around 250-300. Longer time and quadruple cost is a difficult business case


Similar considerations as you did are now under study for Hordfast, part of E39 motorway Haugesund-Bergen. Hordaland County must give a loan guarantee for the giant 43 billion project Hordfast, and they have to be responsible for 30 billion in loans. They know that the toll costs will be very high for drivers, while a private ferry will be annoying, but will save much money for drivers. Making the toll low to adapt to private ferry will be bad for county budget...

It is therefore an incredible risk for Hordaland to approve the Hordfast project. https://www.nrk.no/hordaland/vil-ikkje-stille-som-lanegarantisk-for-hordfast-1.13103376


----------



## Stafangr

When Ryfast is completed, the county will end their financial support for the Lauvik-Oanes ferry. Arguing based on the premiss of a ticket price at 73 NOK is false.

Even if the crossing takes 10 minutes, you need to account for the time it takes to drive from Jørpeland to Vatne, and waiting time at the quay.


----------



## MattiG

Stafangr said:


> When Ryfast is completed, the county will end their financial support for the Lauvik-Oanes ferry. Arguing based on the premiss of a ticket price at 73 NOK is false.
> 
> Even if the crossing takes 10 minutes, you need to account for the time it takes to drive from Jørpeland to Vatne, and waiting time at the quay.


Perhaps we could guess that if the local administration wants to have a ferry there, it is ready to pay some level of subsidies?

Still, the key thing is not the ferry itself. The key thing is that if someone wants to set up a private ferry connection in Norway, it seems to need a permission from the ivory tower in Oslo.


----------



## Stafangr

MattiG said:


> Perhaps we could guess that if the local administration wants to have a ferry there, it is ready to pay some level of subsidies?
> 
> Still, the key thing is not the ferry itself. The key thing is that if someone wants to set up a private ferry connection in Norway, it seems to need a permission from the ivory tower in Oslo.


I haven't looked into it, and I don't have time for it at the moment, but I would ask if:

1) Does the municipalities have the right to contribute or is it the county municipality's prerogative?

2) Would financial support by municipality need to be approved by the county or the State department?

3) Would it comply with EU law on state aid?


----------



## g.spinoza

Norway is not in eu...


----------



## Stafangr

g.spinoza said:


> Norway is not in eu...


We are in the EEA, and Norway must comply with most/a lot of EU law, including EU state aid law.


----------



## Suburbanist

Does state aid laws also apply to transportation infrastructure?


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

In any case the municipality would just have to put out a tender, something it should do anyway.


----------



## MattiG

Stafangr said:


> I haven't looked into it, and I don't have time for it at the moment, but I would ask if:
> 
> 1) Does the municipalities have the right to contribute or is it the county municipality's prerogative?
> 
> 2) Would financial support by municipality need to be approved by the county or the State department?
> 
> 3) Would it comply with EU law on state aid?


EU does not forbid municipalities from entering business, nor buying services from private businesses as far as the sourcing laws are followed. I believe the key factor is the Norwegian legislation.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

*Hjelle*

Tunnels are great to improve traffic flow, but they are also detrimental to the experience of Norway.

For example, _riksvei 15_ goes through the Hjelle Tunnel. The old route is bypassed. But if you follow the main road, you'll miss scenery like this.


Hjelle, Norway by European Roads, on Flickr


----------



## metasmurf

Stafangr said:


> I haven't looked into it, and I don't have time for it at the moment, but I would ask if:
> 
> 1) Does the municipalities have the right to contribute or is it the county municipality's prerogative?
> 
> 2) Would financial support by municipality need to be approved by the county or the State department?
> 
> 3) Would it comply with EU law on state aid?


Rules or no rules, from my experience municipalities can always find ways to gain private companies. They'll just put their solicitors to find loopholes or arrangements so it holds up legally. If there's a will there's a way.


----------



## Mathias Olsen

*Progress Expressway construction E18 Swedish border*










The improvements of E18 from Østfold to the Swedish border include a grade separated 1+1 road with 2+1 sections and space reservations for 4-lane motorway. This leads to safer traffic and the E18 through the county gets a better and more equal standard. The route is about 6.4 km long, with a width of 12.5 meters and a speed limit of 90 km/h. Through Winton center, the speed being reduced to 70 km/h. Photos with the status of the construction in July 2016.

2+1 section



















Kjølen bridge with junction 










Bridge in Winston



















Sletta bridge










Construction site at the Swedish border










The design of this new E18 had been done by NPRA under the former government. It may give a good impression about the design of main roads with a too low AADT to justify a motorway.


----------



## cinxxx

Some impressions from the Fv53 

Norway - Fylkesveg 53 (Fv53) by cinxxx, on Flickr

Norway - Fylkesveg 53 (Fv53) by cinxxx, on Flickr

Norway - Fylkesveg 53 (Fv53) by cinxxx, on Flickr


----------



## cinxxx

*And Tindevegen*

Norway - Tindevegen by cinxxx, on Flickr

Norway - Tindevegen by cinxxx, on Flickr

Norway - Tindevegen by cinxxx, on Flickr

Norway - Tindevegen by cinxxx, on Flickr


----------



## cinxxx

Norway - Tindevegen by cinxxx, on Flickr

Norway - Tindevegen by cinxxx, on Flickr

Norway - Tindevegen by cinxxx, on Flickr

Norway - Tindevegen by cinxxx, on Flickr

Norway - Tindevegen by cinxxx, on Flickr


----------



## cinxxx

Norway - Tindevegen by cinxxx, on Flickr

Norway - Tindevegen by cinxxx, on Flickr

Norway - Tindevegen by cinxxx, on Flickr

Norway - Tindevegen by cinxxx, on Flickr


----------



## Heico-M

ChrisZwolle said:


> Tunnels are great to improve traffic flow, but they are also detrimental to the experience of Norway.
> 
> For example, _riksvei 15_ goes through the Hjelle Tunnel. The old route is bypassed. But if you follow the main road, you'll miss scenery like this.
> 
> 
> Hjelle, Norway by European Roads, on Flickr


Absolutely my point! In the case of Hjelle, the positive thing is that the old road will not be abandoned because it serves the village of Hjelle. But i must admit, that me too, I took the tunnel, just a few weeks ago. It takes some planning to find these roads. 

Tourism offices can do a job to help tourists at finding these roads One example which I found: on E16 near Borgund the old route is actually signposted! More of that please! 
https://www.google.de/maps/@61.0516...0AcFgd5AxLuAiq4cmoJw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=de


----------



## Heico-M

cinxxx said:


> Norway - Tindevegen by cinxxx, on Flickr


There are more and more private toll roads that only accept credit cards. This one is great because it informs you in time. 
Other toll roads wanted me to put the exact amount in cash into an envelope. On another one they had a machine at least, but which accepted only coins. So wherever you go, be prepared.


----------



## cinxxx

Don't want to spam this thread 

From here you can see pictures from Fv55 (Sognefjellsvegen):
https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/28608263264/in/album-72157669603706373/


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

Heico-M said:


> There are more and more private toll roads that only accept credit cards. This one is great because it informs you in time.
> Other toll roads wanted me to put the exact amount in cash into an envelope. On another one they had a machine at least, but which accepted only coins. So wherever you go, be prepared.


According to Norwegian law you have the right to pay in cash for any service or commodity, although the banks currently are pushing to change this. Hence, in principle "credit card only" is illegal if there are no other way of paying, eg advance or post payment directly to the owner of the road. As in any law there could be some loopholes, of course. For most people, the completely legal "Cash only" is a far bigger problem nowadays, however.


----------



## cinxxx

^^The hotel where we stayed in Tromso, they only accepted card payments.
You couldn't even buy a soda by cash...


----------



## Mathias Olsen

Heico-M said:


> Tourism offices can do a job to help tourists at finding these roads


Norway has an official network of 18 authorised tourist routes. The Storting and the Government commissioned NPRA to select National Tourist Routes to improve Norway’s position as tourist country and to stimulate local business activities. Here are the 18 routes from North to South:

Varanger, Havøysund, Senja, Andøya, Lofoten, Helgelandskysten, Atlanterhavsvegen, Geiranger – Trollstigen, Gamle Strynefjellsvegen, Rondane, Sognefjellet, Valdresflye, Gaularfjellet, Aurlandsfjellet, Hardanger, Hardangervidda, Ryfylke and Jæren.

My favorites are:

1.	Geiranger – Trollstigen, Fv 63

You can’t find a fjord more beautiful anywhere else in the world. It is at UNESCO’s celebrated World Heritage List.










To enjoy the full beauty, you need to make a boat trip. Otherwise looking at the fjord is like looking at a glass of beer, without drinking :cheers:










2. Gamle Strynefjellsvegene, Fv 258



















3.	Aurlandsfjellet, the old E16 road.




























4.	Gaularfjellet, Fv 13



















The uniqueness of these routes lies in the spectacular architecture found at viewpoints, places of interest and great scenery. Worth to visit and to enjoy the awesome nature.


----------



## Heico-M

54°26′S 3°24′E;134996910 said:


> According to Norwegian law you have the right to pay in cash for any service or commodity, although the banks currently are pushing to change this. Hence, in principle "credit card only" is illegal if there are no other way of paying, eg advance or post payment directly to the owner of the road. As in any law there could be some loopholes, of course. For most people, the completely legal "Cash only" is a far bigger problem nowadays, however.


Well, illegal or not, it was there! Namely at Aursjøvegen and Mardalsvegen. 

Believe me, many Germans have a problem with card payment because it leaves data. Ridiculous, sure, but it's real. They are afraid of being traced by whoever - state, companies, illuminati ... you name it. Quite the contrary to the Scandinavian pragmatism (even 5kr. toilet fees can be paid with credit cards :lol


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

But mobile phones are OK?


----------



## Suburbanist

54°26′S 3°24′E;135020623 said:


> But mobile phones are OK?


Indeed, I dismiss anyone's concerns about being tracked by dashcams, video cameras on roads, or bank card uses, while still carrying a mobile phone with them, as misguided or outright hysterical-paranoid. Nothing tracks a person more than the 'digital footprints' of his or her cell phone. If it is a smartphone, then, the potential for tracking is much more pervasive and intense.


----------



## Heico-M

54°26′S 3°24′E;135020623 said:


> But mobile phones are OK?


Well, actually, some are so paranoid that they don't even have a cell phone. 
:cheers:


----------



## devo

Heico-M said:


> Well, actually, some are so paranoid that they don't even have a cell phone.
> :cheers:


I'm assuming they also turn it off if they're not using it. After all, the privacy issues with GSM and similar technologies have been known for a while so why would they not know about it?


----------



## MattiG

54°26′S 3°24′E;135020623 said:


> But mobile phones are OK?


There are several layers of risk...

In fact, the location of an idle phone is not tracked accurately. It depends on the operator how often the network pages the phone to get to know its location down to the cell. Usually, the interval of periodic location updates is hours. When the phone moves from a routing area to another, its location is tracked. Again, the size of an routing area is subject to the planning by the operator. It may consist of thousands of cells.

If the phone turns active (call, SMS, browsing, email sync, etc), its location is known down to a cell. In cities, the location accuracy may be a some hundreds of meters, and in rural areas tens of kilometers. Only the operator knows to location, unless it gives the information to a 3rd party.

But if using a smartphone with location services on and available to zillions of smelly applications, the case is totally different. Then the phone is hyperactive all the time, and its location is most probably known by many lurkers in addition to the operator.

Thus, the risk is manageable to some degree. But there is a trade-off between privacy and usefulness.


----------



## Mathias Olsen

54°26′S 3°24′E;135020623 said:


> But mobile phones are OK?


It is one of the secrets in society that mobile phones can still be tracked if the battery is installed.

In other words: if a phone is "switched off" it is in fact in a sleep or standby mode. The button wakes it up from a state that wasn't actually off.
The phone terminates the main operating system, running programs, powers down the screen and the radio systems are turned off. However, the processor is still running a lower level system and is able to allow tracking software to turn the radio systems back on to do live tracking.


The only absolute guarantee is to delete the battery from the smartphone.
Only in that case you are sure you cannot be followed


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

Secret, nah. We all know that truth from Kiefer Sutherland / 24 ;-)


----------



## devo

To slide even farther off topic: AFAIK, the GSM network will continuously send signals as the phone moves in and out of the different cell towers coverage, and it will also send and receive "ping" signals to let the network know that it's still there. So with access to these logs, one could pinpoint the location of a phone (IMSI), especially (and somewhat accurate) in an area with many cell towers.

This refers to what you can figure out from a "dumb" phone, modern smartphones has much more sophisticated connections/applications.


----------



## cinxxx

Some more pictures from me 

*(Rv15) - Fossbergom to Geiranger*

Norway (Rv15) - Fossbergom to Geiranger by cinxxx, on Flickr

Norway (Rv15) - Fossbergom to Geiranger by cinxxx, on Flickr

Norway (Rv15) - Fossbergom to Geiranger by cinxxx, on Flickr


----------



## cinxxx

*(Fv63) - Geiranger road*

Norway (Fv63) - Geiranger road by cinxxx, on Flickr

Norway (Fv63) - Geiranger road by cinxxx, on Flickr

Norway (Fv63) - Geiranger road by cinxxx, on Flickr


----------



## MattiG

devo said:


> To slide even farther off topic: AFAIK, the GSM network will continuously send signals as the phone moves in and out of the different cell towers coverage, and it will also send and receive "ping" signals to let the network know that it's still there.


No, it does not work that way. That would create excessive control traffic. The network is not very keen on knowing where an idle phone is, or if it is powered on or not.

Basically, an idle phone is not tracked unless it switches to a new routing area. In that case, the phone is active and tells the mobile switching center "hi, I am here". In addition, the network may request a periodic location update, "a ping", but usually in intervals of hours.

When an idle phone is called, every cell in the routing area, where the phone is known to be, broadcasts a message "are you there". This is called paging. As the phone constantly listens to the broadcasts of nearby cells, it responds to the network via some of the cells. 

When an idle phone wants to make a call, it selects one cell, and reports to the switching center.

The 2G/3G/4G protocol set is large, but all the technologies share the same basic logic. Of course, there is network-originated functionality to locate a phone, in i.e. emergencies. In many jurisdictions, this kind of functionality is reserved for authorities' use only.


----------



## italystf

Suburbanist said:


> Indeed, I dismiss anyone's concerns about being tracked by dashcams, video cameras on roads, or bank card uses, while still carrying a mobile phone with them, as misguided or outright hysterical-paranoid. Nothing tracks a person more than the 'digital footprints' of his or her cell phone. If it is a smartphone, then, the potential for tracking is much more pervasive and intense.


Misuse of credit cards is not only a risk in term of privacy, but also of money. If you pay with your credit card in a non-well-protected online circuit (i.e. some shady, unknown websites, instead of reputable businesses), some hackers may access your bank account and steal your money.


----------



## italystf

MattiG said:


> There are several layers of risk...
> 
> In fact, the location of an idle phone is not tracked accurately. It depends on the operator how often the network pages the phone to get to know its location down to the cell. Usually, the interval of periodic location updates is hours. When the phone moves from a routing area to another, its location is tracked. Again, the size of an routing area is subject to the planning by the operator. It may consist of thousands of cells.
> 
> If the phone turns active (call, SMS, browsing, email sync, etc), its location is known down to a cell. In cities, the location accuracy may be a some hundreds of meters, and in rural areas tens of kilometers. Only the operator knows to location, unless it gives the information to a 3rd party.
> 
> But if using a smartphone with location services on and available to zillions of smelly applications, the case is totally different. Then the phone is hyperactive all the time, and its location is most probably known by many lurkers in addition to the operator.
> 
> Thus, the risk is manageable to some degree. But there is a trade-off between privacy and usefulness.


You may turn off your smartphone's GPS when you don't need it, you will also save battery.


----------



## MattiG

Mathias Olsen said:


> Norway has an official network of 18 authorised tourist routes.


...


> My favorites are:


...


> 3.	Aurlandsfjellet, the old E16 road.


I think that the road over Aurlandfjellet never was E16. Before the tunnel road, the E16 was routed over the ferry Lærdal-Gudvangen and later Kaupanger-Gudvangen. When the tunnels from Gudvangen to Flåm got ready, the Aurland-Gudvangen route got renumbered to Rv50.

Anyway, my top 10 mountain routes are, not in any order of preference:

- Suleskard+Lysebotn
- E134 Haukeli-Seljestad over the old non-tunnel roads Dyrskar and Røldalsfjellet
- Rv7 Hardangervidda and Måbødalen
- Gol-Aurland-Aurlandsfjellet
- Måløy-Kråkenes+Vestkapp
- Peer Gynt vegen + Jotunheimvegen
- Sognefjellet + Tyin-Årdal-Turtagrø
- Strynefjellet-Nibbeveien-Geiranger-Trollstigen
- Ifjordfjellet+Nordkynnhalvøya
- Varangerhalvøya to Berlevåg


----------



## Mathias Olsen

MattiG said:


> ...
> Anyway, my top 10 mountain routes are, not in any order of preference:
> 
> - Suleskard+Lysebotn
> - E134 Haukeli-Seljestad over the old non-tunnel roads Dyrskar and Røldalsfjellet
> - Rv7 Hardangervidda and Måbødalen
> - Gol-Aurland-Aurlandsfjellet
> - Måløy-Kråkenes+Vestkapp
> - Peer Gynt vegen + Jotunheimvegen
> - Sognefjellet + Tyin-Årdal-Turtagrø
> - Strynefjellet-Nibbeveien-Geiranger-Trollstigen
> - Ifjordfjellet+Nordkynnhalvøya
> - Varangerhalvøya to Berlevåg


A lot of routes in Southern Norway. Do you have a special commitment to that area?

IMO many can be added to NPRA tourist routes, especially E134 Haukeli-Seljestad and even the present road with tunnels has enough scenery fun for tourists. It is not a mountain road, but has easy access. I also should add Rv 15 on the list of tourist routes. Maybe not so much high mountain excitement as Fv 258, but easier access.


----------



## MattiG

Mathias Olsen said:


> A lot of routes in Southern Norway. Do you have a special commitment to that area?


The logic is easy: As I categorized them into mountain routes, I did not include seaside routes as Helgelandkysten, Lofoten, Havøysundsvegen, Lyngen, Atlanterhavsvegen and Stavanger-Bergen-Ålesund. The largest mountains are in the south.


----------



## Heico-M

Arrr, I need to save these posts, that is the stuff for Norway holidays for the next 20 years. 
(As long as they have not moved the whole road network underground by then)

Thank you guys!


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

Personally, I would like to keep my favorite roads as peaceful as they are today, so I'll keep my mouth shut ;-) Seriously, Chris is somewhat right that you after a while get numb by driving around in nice scenery. Nature is IMO best experienced far away from any roads, in slow motion either by foot, ski or kayak...


----------



## Heico-M

Maybe some road geeks will even go to Norway to look at spectacular tunnels and bridges. :cheers:


----------



## cinxxx

Some more pictures from me 

*Geiranger*

View from the Geiranger Road by cinxxx, on Flickr

*Eagles road (Ørneveien)*

View from the Eagles road (Ørneveien) by cinxxx, on Flickr

Evening
View from the Eagles road (Ørneveien) by cinxxx, on Flickr

Next day
View from the Eagles road (Ørneveien) by cinxxx, on Flickr

View from the Eagles road (Ørneveien) by cinxxx, on Flickr


----------



## cinxxx

*Fv63 - Geiranger to Eidsdal*

Norway (Fv63) - Geiranger to Eidsdal by cinxxx, on Flickr

Norway (Fv63) - Geiranger to Eidsdal by cinxxx, on Flickr

*Fv63 - Eidsdal-Linge ferry*

Norway (Fv63) - Eidsdal-Linge ferry by cinxxx, on Flickr

Norway (Fv63) - Eidsdal-Linge ferry by cinxxx, on Flickr

Norway (Fv63) - Eidsdal-Linge ferry by cinxxx, on Flickr

*Fv63 - Linge to Trollstigen*

Norway (Fv63) - Linge to Trollstigen by cinxxx, on Flickr


----------



## cinxxx

*BONUS -> Gudbrandsjuvet*
https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/albums/72157673192111275


----------



## Mathias Olsen

*Progress improvements E134 Amot*

Although E134 via Røldal will get new long tunnels to overcome snow problems in winter, the present E134 mountain road is still under construction for improvements.
The new Røldal and Haukeli tunnels will be available not earlier than next decade, so it is worth to invest in widening of the existing E134 over Røldal.
Here are photos of the widening to at least 3 lanes and other improvements. Photo session from 15 August 2016. Excuses for the bad photo resolution.

Widening South East of Amot. In future this road will no longer be part of E134, because a new shorter section will be constructed via Rauland to reduce traveling with more than 30 minutes. But even for local traffic the widening is a necessary investment.










Widening South East of Amot, at Vinje Kommune border










Already widened section with central barrier and separated lanes at Amot










Another already widened section with central barrier and separated lanes West of Amot










Small reconstruction site East of Røldal


----------



## IceCheese

Rv23 The Oslofjord tunnel is now (finally) free: https://www.regjeringen.no/no/aktuelt/bort-med-bompengene/id2510061/
There's still a lot of work remaining on this stretch of road, though.


----------



## Mathias Olsen

IceCheese said:


> Rv23 The Oslofjord tunnel is now (finally) free: https://www.regjeringen.no/no/aktuelt/bort-med-bompengene/id2510061/
> There's still a lot of work remaining on this stretch of road, though.


The toll barrier disappears and allows people on both sides of the fjord now a much easier access. That means an increase in traffic volumes and load on the road now that the connection is made free. 

It can only be good news, because it will trigger government and NPRA to come with a better tunnel or bridge for the Rv 23.


----------



## IceCheese

At practically the same time preparation work is starting on the new 4-lane section of Rv23 Dagslett-Linnes connecting towards E18 and Drammen (via Fv282) at Lierstranda.

PDF: http://www.vegvesen.no/_attachment/1488944/binary/1126927?fast_title=Nærinformasjon+august+2016.pdf


----------



## Mathias Olsen

*Design Western E134 Kongsberg bypass published*










The 4.7 km stretch Trollerud Moen-Saggrenda, has now been published on 29/08/2016, the third and last section of 13.2 km new E134 near Kongsberg. The current National Transport Plan requires Drammen-Kongsberg a 4-lane motorway and Kongsberg-Notodden a 3-lane 2+1 road. However in the published design is only a 2-lane grade separated road with two single tube tunnels respectively 300 meters (Moan tunnel) and 450 meters (Vollåstunnelen). The section has one grade separated junction and also 4 bridges. The Saggrenda bridge over both a river and the current E134 is the largest and longest. According to the planning, the whole bypass Kongsberg will be ready at the end of 2019.


----------



## Gsus

Mathias Olsen said:


> *Design Western E134 Kongsberg bypass published*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 4.7 km stretch Trollerud Moen-Saggrenda, has now been published on 29/08/2016, the third and last section of 13.2 km new E134 near Kongsberg. The current National Transport Plan requires Drammen-Kongsberg a 4-lane motorway and Kongsberg-Notodden a 3-lane 2+1 road. However in the published design is only a 2-lane grade separated road with two single tube tunnels respectively 300 meters (Moan tunnel) and 450 meters (Vollåstunnelen). The section has one grade separated junction and also 4 bridges. The Saggrenda bridge over both a river and the current E134 is the largest and longest. According to the planning, the whole bypass Kongsberg will be ready at the end of 2019.


Don´t think there ever was a plan building the western part of this project with three lane throughout the section. But have they cut the 1,5km or so passing lane in direction Notodden?

But in the opposite end of this project, I found this text on the projects website: http://www.vegvesen.no/Europaveg/Damasen/Om+prosjektet/e134-damåsentislegård/damåsentislegård

If the person who wrote it knew what they wrote, it seems like the four lane section from the east won`t start until the Diseplass junction is passed going west. If thats correct, it really an ridiculous way of saving money! All bridges and structures is gonna be fitted for four lanes anyway if they´re gonna keep the central divider (which does`nt very seem realistic to cut), and cruched stone and asphalt is really not what makes the project expensive. Even the drainage and lighening has to be pretty much of the same dimensions. And when (if) they continue expanding the E134 in direction Drammen i a not to distant future, they will once again have to expand a pretty new road, which means unnecessary extra length of an future construction zone to the east hno: Really hope the text is wrong. Never seen anything else on this.


----------



## cinxxx

*Trollstigen* by me 

Trollstigen by cinxxx, on Flickr

Trollstigen by cinxxx, on Flickr

Trollstigen by cinxxx, on Flickr

Trollstigen by cinxxx, on Flickr


----------



## Fargo Wolf

cinxxx said:


> *Trollstigen* by me


Awesome. Nuff said.


----------



## Mathias Olsen

Gsus said:


> Don´t think there ever was a plan building the western part of this project with three lane throughout the section.


Kongsberg-Notodden is in the present National Transport Plan. This has been discussed earlier  and there has been a latent desire after E134 became main EW road with NPRA predicted AADT > 8000, that Kongsberg-Notodden would be reconstructed as 4-lane motorway:



Ingenioren said:


> It's not that far fetched, the current ntp recommends motorway untill Kongsberg, then 2+1 untill Notodden, but after the standard of southern section of E39 was switched to motorway i would not be surpriced by such a twist





> the four lane section from the east won`t start until the Diseplass junction is passed going west. If thats correct, it really an ridiculous way of saving money!


Motorway with 4-lanes from Diseplass junction to Kongsberg is according to the present National Transport Plan. The designers just did fulfill the requirements of the governance guidelines. Nothing unusual.



Gsus said:


> All bridges and structures is gonna be fitted for four lanes anyway if they´re gonna keep the central divider (which does`nt very seem realistic to cut), and cruched stone and asphalt is really not what makes the project expensive. Even the drainage and lighening has to be pretty much of the same dimensions.


Four lane construction is till Trollerud Moen (Kongsberg-West) according to the National Transport Plan, but they really saved money on this section by replacing motorway juntions by 4 roundabouts and the river bridge is without emergency lanes and with a very short curve.


----------



## Mathias Olsen

*NPRA recommends Rv 52 as second East-West main road*










Today, NPRA has advised the government to take Rv 52 over RV. 7, because it is better for economics and effectiveness and ability to serve drivers who cannot use the E134 via Haukeli. Focus on Rv 52 and E134 is a better overall solution, with better efficiency and over a geographically wider area than the Rv 7 can cover. It will also make possible a Bergen Arm to E134 via Haukeli. Rv 7 has the disadvantage that it goes through a National Park with Caribou population and the Hardangervidda is hard to get snow-free in winter. Full report: http://www.vegvesen.no/_attachment/1513071/binary/1130053?fast_title=KVU+rv++7+og+rv++52.pdf


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Rv. 52 is also good for traffic to western Sogn og Fjordane.


----------



## metasmurf

Mathias Olsen said:


> Motorway with 4-lanes from Diseplass junction to Kongsberg is according to the present National Transport Plan. The designers just did fulfill the requirements of the governance guidelines. Nothing unusual.
> 
> Four lane construction is till Trollerud Moen (Kongsberg-West) according to the National Transport Plan, but they really saved money on this section by replacing motorway juntions by 4 roundabouts and the river bridge is without emergency lanes and with a very short curve.



According to this article the choice of roundabouts is due to lack of space.


----------



## Ingenioren

MattiG said:


> I think that the road over Aurlandfjellet never was E16. Before the tunnel road, the E16 was routed over the ferry Lærdal-Gudvangen and later Kaupanger-Gudvangen. When the tunnels from Gudvangen to Flåm got ready, the Aurland-Gudvangen route got renumbered to Rv50.


For a while there was a ferry from Revsnes to Gudvangen, and then Revsnes was the ferry quay for Rv5 for some time - here is an interesting page with photos from the closed quay:









http://www.ferjebloggen.com/?p=274

Thinking about the pre-lærdalstunnel times really makes one wonder wtf they were thinking putting E16 trough this area.


----------



## berlinwroclaw

metasmurf said:


> According to this article the choice of roundabouts is due to lack of space.


Yes, Evie Kvisberglien of NPRA said “no room for anything else”.










Inspecting the maps and the artist impression doesn’t confirm this. It is not impossible to construct a viaduct to the tunnel and a new bridge over the river. Alternative will be a new tunnel between the Kongsberg tunnel and the other side of the river. Yes, indeed there are buildings, railway line and there is a river. It is possible to remove one of the buildings. No reason to build any roundabout, a 2x2 motorway could have been constructed without even removing any building. Kongsberg doesn’t need 5 motorway junctions, 2 junctions are sufficient.


----------



## Gsus

Mathias Olsen said:


> Kongsberg-Notodden is in the present National Transport Plan. This has been discussed earlier  and there has been a latent desire after E134 became main EW road with NPRA predicted AADT > 8000, that Kongsberg-Notodden would be reconstructed as 4-lane motorway:


No, Kongsberg-Notodden is not in the current transport plan. Saggrenda-Elgsjø has been proposed by the road administration tho, for the next transport plan. 2+1 road, or "midtrekkverk og forbikjøringsfelt" does`nt mean it will be continuous throughout the section. Do you have a source I can read about four lanes between Kongsberg and Notodden? Or is this unofficial? 





Mathias Olsen said:


> Motorway with 4-lanes from Diseplass junction to Kongsberg is according to the present National Transport Plan. The designers just did fulfill the requirements of the governance guidelines. Nothing unusual.


The project starts at Damåsen in east. There will be about two kilometers from Damåsen until Diseplass junction is passed. That`s what I´m questioning from what it says in the link from the project page. There it says Damåsen-Diseplass is to be built with two lanes. This is the only place I´ve seen this tho. Every other documents and articles says four lanes all the way from Damåsen from day one. So it might be wrong.





Mathias Olsen said:


> Four lane construction is till Trollerud Moen (Kongsberg-West) according to the National Transport Plan, but they really saved money on this section by replacing motorway juntions by 4 roundabouts and the river bridge is without emergency lanes and with a very short curve.


Yep! This corridor and alignment for this road was chosen back in 2004, when there was only talks of 8,5 - 10 meters wide road with roundabouts as is constructed now. Really not an optimal solution! I they were to have built a motorway I think they would have had to bypass Kongsberg either further south, og north of the city.



berlinwroclaw said:


> Yes, Evie Kvisberglien of NPRA said “no room for anything else”.
> 
> Inspecting the maps and the artist impression doesn’t confirm this. It is not impossible to construct a viaduct to the tunnel and a new bridge over the river. Alternative will be a new tunnel between the Kongsberg tunnel and the other side of the river. Yes, indeed there are buildings, railway line and there is a river. It is possible to remove one of the buildings. No reason to build any roundabout, a 2x2 motorway could have been constructed without even removing any building. Kongsberg doesn’t need 5 motorway junctions, 2 junctions are sufficient.


Nothing is impossible, but as I write further up here, this corridor was chosen long before there was any plans of such dimensions. Building grade separated intersections here would certainly be expensive and need a lot of space. Another bridge over the river for a local road and complicated ramps (maybe on bridges aswell). A more straight line between the two tunnels might not even give a long enough section for a grade separated junction. Just not a suitable place for a large intersection.



Ingenioren said:


> For a while there was a ferry from Revsnes to Gudvangen, and then Revsnes was the ferry quay for Rv5 for some time - here is an interesting page with photos from the closed quay:
> 
> Thinking about the pre-lærdalstunnel times really makes one wonder wtf they were thinking putting E16 trough this area.


AFAIK there was only ferries to and from Kaupanger going from Revsnes. The E16-ferry went all the way into Lærdal, departing/arriving every third hour during daytime for as long as I remember. 

Remember this road well tho. My uncle knew exactly where it was possible to pass a slower vehicle  Road a bike out there a few years ago. Lots of fallen rocks lying in the road.


----------



## MattiG

Ingenioren said:


> For a while there was a ferry from Revsnes to Gudvangen, and then Revsnes was the ferry quay for Rv5 for some time


That era lasted for 27 years. The road to Revsnes was problematic because of repeating landslides and snowslides. The road got closed 99 times, and the ferry company had a crisis timetable for closures. The exception routes were Årdalstangen-Kaupanger, Gudvangen-Kaupanger and Kaupanger-Lærdal.

People got quite happy when the Fodnes tunnel and quay got opened, and the traffic was diverted to the route Fodnes-Kaupanger. The Manneller-Fodnes route was opened a couple years later.



> Thinking about the pre-lærdalstunnel times really makes one wonder wtf they were thinking putting E16 trough this area.


It is the most traditional trade route between Oslo and Bergen. Despite its length and long ferry crossing, it was the only (almost) reliable route for the winter travel. The winter-safe Hardangervidda and Haukeli are quite recent investments.


----------



## Mathias Olsen

Gsus said:


> No, Kongsberg-Notodden is not in the current transport plan. Saggrenda-Elgsjø has been proposed by the road administration tho, for the next transport plan. 2+1 road, or "midtrekkverk og forbikjøringsfelt" does`nt mean it will be continuous throughout the section. Do you have a source I can read about four lanes between Kongsberg and Notodden? Or is this unofficial?


Sorry, but I didn’t write that Kongsberg-Notodden is in the current NTP planned as 4-lane motorway, but 2+1. However, there are sources that Ministry of Transport and Ministry of Finance at least want to evaluate such a 4-lane motorway between Kongsberg and Notodden, and even further to the West, here are their alternatives for Kongsberg-Notodden:



> *Concept E134 Kongsberg- Gvammen, Dovre Group, Commissioned by Ministry of Transport and Ministry of Finance, 2012*
> 
> https://www.ntnu.no/documents/12618...E134 Kongsberg - Gvammen Dovre TØI 100312.pdf
> 
> Concept 1 - less measures, mainly associated with road safety
> Concept 2 - general rearmament. Gentler curvature and wider roads with median
> *Concept 3 - the full development of motorway standard throughout and under Notodden
> Concept 4 - full development of motorway standard outside Notodden*
> Concept North - composed of development outside Notodden and general rearmament
> Concept South - composed of development outside Notodden, general upgrading and
> Linked to Tuven at Notodden


Already in 2012, when E16, Rv 7 and Rv 52 were the authorised EW main roads, there were serious government plans to construct a full 4-lane motorway between Kongsberg and Notodden. Since 2015 we have seen a revolution in EW roads. E134 has become the main road between East and West. It is expected that the parliament will select Rv 52 as second road, that will make possible more traffic will go over the E134 to the East. 



Gsus said:


> There it says Damåsen-Diseplass is to be built with two lanes. This is the only place I´ve seen this tho. Every other documents and articles says four lanes all the way from Damåsen from day one. So it might be wrong.


Yes, we have to look at the construction. AFAIK there is only new wide motorway under construction. See photo below. Excuses for the bad photo resolution.












Gsus said:


> Another bridge over the river for a local road and complicated ramps (maybe on bridges aswell). A more straight line between the two tunnels might not even give a long enough section for a grade separated junction. Just not a suitable place for a large intersection.


The alternative will be to construct a new motorway bypass, that will be even more expensive. It may be cheaper to remove some buildings. A junction between the tunnels can be skipped. Aren't two junctions enough for a city of 25000 inhabitants? Most traffic will go to in the direction of Drammen and will use the junction at Diseplass. The other junction will be Kongsgårdmoen.


----------



## berlinwroclaw

Gsus said:


> Nothing is impossible, but as I write further up here, this corridor was chosen long before there was any plans of such dimensions. Building grade separated intersections here would certainly be expensive and need a lot of space. Another bridge over the river for a local road and complicated ramps (maybe on bridges aswell). A more straight line between the two tunnels might not even give a long enough section for a grade separated junction. Just not a suitable place for a large intersection.


Who told us that there is no space? It was Evie Kvisberglien who received her master degree in ecology in 2012. She studied at Høgskolen i Telemark (HiT) in Porsgrunn. Perhaps the new E134 at Kongsberg was her first job at NPRA. Her background explains very much of the new section through Kongsberg with not less than 4 roundabouts where the governmental guidelines require a 2x2 grade separated motorway. There has been so much irritation from the government that they wanted to stop the construction of the complete new E134 near Kongsberg. However designing a new motorway section far from Kongsberg would take too much time. The present upgrade is seen as a quick-win to increase traffic capacity and speed. “It is not certain it solves all challenges. It is certainly the feedback I get from professional drivers who live on the road”, says Hoksrud, Secretary of State. That means the government may expect claims from professional drivers and business men. On the map below we see, coming from the East that after the first tunnel a motorway section ends in the first roundabout. Two other roundabouts have to be passed. Then the second tunnel and then the fourth and last roundabout.










From the words of Hoksrud we may expect a new upgrade with the removal of the roundabouts in future.


----------



## Gsus

Mathias Olsen said:


> Sorry, but I didn’t write that Kongsberg-Notodden is in the current NTP planned as 4-lane motorway, but 2+1. However, there are sources that Ministry of Transport and Ministry of Finance at least want to evaluate such a 4-lane motorway between Kongsberg and Notodden, and even further to the West, here are their alternatives for Kongsberg-Notodden
> 
> Already in 2012, when E16, Rv 7 and Rv 52 were the authorised EW main roads, there were serious government plans to construct a full 4-lane motorway between Kongsberg and Notodden. Since 2015 we have seen a revolution in EW roads. E134 has become the main road between East and West. It is expected that the parliament will select Rv 52 as second road, that will make possible more traffic will go over the E134 to the East.


Did`nt know that. Guess we`ll just wait and see. Road authorities is expecting quite a rise in traffic, even on the high-mountain sections. But a lot of this is quite far into the future anyway. Definatly a road that might be built with too low capacity!



Mathias Olsen said:


> Yes, we have to look at the construction. AFAIK there is only new wide motorway under construction. See photo below. Excuses for the bad photo resolution.


For me it looks like there might be about 12 meters from the center of the central-drain and out to the side-drain. With 10 meters from the from the central point in the cross-section out to the edge of the road shoulder, and 2 meters horizontal out to the ditch-bottom it might look like it`s built for four lanes. But it`s quite hard to tell. Might be built as a two-laner with a 2-meter central divider for future expanding. One never knows...



Mathias Olsen said:


> The alternative will be to construct a new motorway bypass, that will be even more expensive. It may be cheaper to remove some buildings. A junction between the tunnels can be skipped. Aren't two junctions enough for a city of 25000 inhabitants? Most traffic will go to in the direction of Drammen and will use the junction at Diseplass. The other junction will be Kongsgårdmoen.


Two junctions would be enough in a lot of countries. But not always up here  I think Diseplass in the east, and Saggrenda junction in the west would have been the most suitable with the current alignment if it was to be grade separated (quite short distances between the tunnels, but Kongsgårmoen might be long enough).


----------



## Mathias Olsen

*NPRA recommends new road E134 Gvammen-Vågsli via Rauland*










Today at Seljord has been decided that E134 will go in future via Rauland and no longer via Seljord. This will make the E134 East West road 35 km shorter, and may shorten the travel time by more than 50 minutes. A major improvement of the E134. NPRA plans are in line with the plans of university profs and business men for an expressway Haugesund/Bergen – Oslo. Compared with them, NPRA reduced the number of tunnels form 9 to 6, see below:


----------



## coolstuff

Mathias Olsen said:


> *NPRA recommends Rv 52 as second East-West main road*
> 
> Today, NPRA has advised the government to take Rv 52 over RV. 7, because it is better for economics and effectiveness and ability to serve drivers who cannot use the E134 via Haukeli.


Storting is the final authority to make the decision for Rv. 7 or Rv. 52. Till that moment, nothing can be sure. Storting may overrule the recommendation of NPRA for Rv. 52. We have seen this in the past.
However, NPRA has learned their lessons. They know that the last business argument for Rv. 7 is the fastest and shortest road in summer. Therefore some truckers take Rv. 7 as favorite. But yesterday, NPRA arranged a decision for the new E134 road from Gvammen to Vågsli via Rauland. 

An incredible reduction of the travel time of 51 minutes, that will make E134 the fastest and shortest road in summer. NPRA predictions show that in 2050 the AADT E134 Haukeli will be 9200, while Rv. 7 Hardangervidda will have 1100. The new decision of NPRA for the stretch via Rauland will a true Rv. 7 killer! See “Stor konkurranse mellom E134 og rv. 7 over Hardangervidda”: http://www.vegvesen.no/_attachment/1513433/binary/1130181?fast_title=KVU+Rapportutkast+E134.pdf

For Rv. 7 is nothing left. A number of members of the Conservative Party want to go for Rv. 7, but they will get a hard job. Perhaps all they can do is to ask for some improvements of Rv. 7.

Yes, it is still possible Storting will overrule NPRA, but this time certainly not on business arguments.


----------



## Mathias Olsen

*Construction of E6 Ulvsvågskaret tunnel in the North postponed till after 2029*










In the draft National Transport Plan (NTP) 2018-2029, the new E6 tunnel, just south of Narvik, that connects Northern Norway with the rest of the country, is not included. The reason to postpone this project may be budget problems, because NPRA has to focus budget to at least 3 new huge road projects in Southern Norway: E39 ferry-free motorway (Haugesund-Bergen), Ring motorways Oslo and East-West roads.
E6 over Ulvsvågskaret in Hamarøy has been a problem for decades, especially for heavy traffic. It will be ever harder in future. http://www.an.no/e6-tunnel-utsatt-til-etter-2029/s/5-4-320674
http://www.nord-salten.no/no/nyheter/aktuelt/vil-beholde-ferge-og-gamle-e6.9131


----------



## ChrisZwolle

The new route of E134 makes the under construction Mjælefjell Tunnel near Gvammen less useful?


----------



## Bjørne

ChrisZwolle said:


> The new route of E134 makes the under construction Mjælefjell Tunnel near Gvammen less useful?


For the EW connection yes, but not for local areas like Seljord.


----------



## ElviS77

In my opinion, prioritizing Haukeli and Hemsedal as the main east-west links makes sense. Geography makes it difficult bordering on the impossible to focus on a single link, and thus, one northern (either Filefjell or Hemsedalsfjellet) and one southern (Haukeli or Hardangervidda) seemed like the most useful idea. With Haukeli clearly better than Hardangervidda, and Hemsedal equally better than Filefjell, that should be the end of that... but I'm not willing to place my bets just yet... Why? Well, mainly because of the inner workings of Norwegian politics... Filefjell is gradually improved as we speak, and Hardangervidda will continue to have its proponents - and the Hardanger bridge... Additionally, particularly Haukeli, but also Hemsedal, need considerable investments over several years in order to outperform the alternatives, and it's nigh on impossible to imagine full speed ahead in one valley and no investments at all in the neighbouring one...

So, what will happen? I believe we'll see considerable investments along the E134, but I'm more sceptical when it comes to a new Bergen-Odda link - which of course is required to make Haukeli the "one and only" Oslo-Bergen route. Further north I think we'll see a continued dogfight over funds. Hemsedal will get official political backing, but will it get all the required funds..? I'm not sure, all three roads will remain somewhat important, with a moderate traffic load according to the road administration's models...

My predictions:
1. Haukeli will become a quality long-distance road in the not too distant future (motorway+divided expressway+10-m-highway), but the Bergen-Odda part is problematic.
2. Oslo-Hønefoss and Bergen-Voss will be made proper motorway/expressway, Hønefoss-Gol and possibly Voss-Lærdal will get priority status, but crossing the Hemsedal mountain may very well be done on the cheap - shorter tunnels, bigger climbs, slower road alignment...
3. Lærdal-Filefjell is reasonable already, and I don't really see them halting the improvement of the Valdres road. 8.5/10 metre width, though, not divided expressway.
4. Some tunnels will be built on Hardangervidda, the climb on the western side may be replaced by a new tunnel further into the future, and with a relatively high AADT Gol-Geilo, that section will eventually be realigned.


----------



## Mathias Olsen

ElviS77 said:


> My predictions:
> 1. Haukeli will become a quality long-distance road in the not too distant future (motorway+divided expressway+10-m-highway), but the Bergen-Odda part is problematic.


Yes, it is likely such a road will be ready next decade. For Bergen-Odda we first have to wait for the government decision between Rv 7 and Rv 52. When Rv 52 is chosen, NPRA says, the Bergen-Odda will be studied.

There has been made some progress for the political side in creating a “quality long-distance road” for the E134 last weeks. Minister Ketil Solvik-Olsen collected enough political support to use the power of the central government to overrule local decisions as with the E134 Kongsberg bypass. The first result is the upgrade of E134 Gvammen- Vågsli. Seljord wanted the E134 via their village, but the central government overruled them with a stretch via Rauland. That will fill hope that similar hard local issues, like at Notodden will also result to a high quality long distance road, and not another narrow road near the city with many junctions.

Back to our predictions about the quality of E134. The new road Gvammen- Vågsli will have T 10,5 profile tunnels. That means the new E134 Gvammen- Vågsli is in fact a half-profile motorway with space reservations for full 4-lane motorway. Such a road may be necessary, because new NPRA predictions for Gvammen- Vågsli are AADT 6500-13500. http://www.vegvesen.no/_attachment/1513433/binary/1130181?fast_title=KVU+Rapportutkast+E134.pdf

There can be reasonable confidence that the E134 will be a mix of motorway+divided expressway+10-m-highway, or even better.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

Mathias Olsen said:


> Back to our predictions about the quality of E134. The new road Gvammen- Vågsli will have T 10,5 profile tunnels. That means the new E134 Gvammen- Vågsli is in fact a half-profile motorway with space reservations for full 4-lane motorway. Such a road may be necessary, because new NPRA predictions for Gvammen- Vågsli are AADT 6500-13500. http://www.vegvesen.no/_attachment/1513433/binary/1130181?fast_title=KVU+Rapportutkast+E134.pdf
> 
> There can be reasonable confidence that the E134 will be a mix of motorway+divided expressway+10-m-highway, or even better.


In the meantime, in a different part of the country.....

The politicians of Trondheim seriously consider trying to stop expansion of E6 east of the city to 4 lanes. This part of the E6 already has close to 20 000 AADT. Note that we are not even talking about a full motorway here, we are talking about a poor fix to an unacceptable situation, and due to the mediocre geometry and reduced width max speed limit will be 90 km/h even after the expansion. I really detest the leftist rule of Trondheim.......

http://www.mb.no/nyheter/2016/09/02/Trondheims-rådmann-med-ja-og-nei-til-E6-øst-13271806.ece


----------



## cinxxx

Some more pictures from me 

Tresfjordbrua by cinxxx, on Flickr

Norway E39 - Ferry Vestnes to Molde by cinxxx, on Flickr

Norway E39 - Ferry Vestnes to Molde by cinxxx, on Flickr

Norway E39 - Ferry Vestnes to Molde by cinxxx, on Flickr

Norway E39 - Ferry Vestnes to Molde by cinxxx, on Flickr

Norway E39 - Ferry Vestnes to Molde by cinxxx, on Flickr

Norway - Fv663 by cinxxx, on Flickr

Norway - Fv663 by cinxxx, on Flickr

Gjemnessundbrua by cinxxx, on Flickr

Gjemnessundbrua by cinxxx, on Flickr

Norway - Ferry Kanestraum to Halsanaustan by cinxxx, on Flickr


----------



## metasmurf

54°26′S 3°24′E;135189077 said:


> In the meantime, in a different part of the country.....
> 
> The politicians of Trondheim seriously consider trying to stop expansion of E6 east of the city to 4 lanes. This part of the E6 already has close to 20 000 AADT. Note that we are not even talking about a full motorway here, we are talking about a poor fix to an unacceptable situation, and due to the mediocre geometry and reduced width max speed limit will be 90 km/h even after the expansion. I really detest the leftist rule of Trondheim.......
> 
> http://www.mb.no/nyheter/2016/09/02/Trondheims-rådmann-med-ja-og-nei-til-E6-øst-13271806.ece


_
" Jeg har snakket med Malvik-Bladet om infrastrukturen i kommunen ved flere anledninger tidligere. Nå er jeg ikke like oppdatert på samferdselsspørsmålene som da jeg satt i Stortinget. Men jeg var i kontakt med samferdselsministeren i går kveld og fikk en klar melding med til dere om E6, sa Per Sandberg til de lokale partitillitsvalgte fra Malvik, Stjørdal og Trondheim som var samlet til felles møte på Vikhammer.

*- Når det gjelder infrastrukturen inn og ut av Trondheim skal det bygges doble tunneler og fire felt på E6 uansett hva bystyret i Trondheim måtte finne på å vedta, var beskjeden Per Sandberg kunne gi på vegne av samferdselsministeren.*"_

Source: http://www.mb.no/nyheter/2016/08/15/E6-skal-bygges-ut-med-fire-felt-13179992.ece


I don't know whether this is true or not but at least it's promising. At any rate it's pretty bizarre that a single municipality can have a say in detailed questions in road projects on national roads such at this and potentially sink a whole project, but I guess that's Norwegian road politics in a nutshell.


----------



## Mathias Olsen

ElviS77 said:


> one northern (either Filefjell or Hemsedalsfjellet) and one southern (Haukeli or Hardangervidda) seemed like the most useful idea. With Haukeli clearly better than Hardangervidda, and Hemsedal equally better than Filefjell, that should be the end of that... but I'm not willing to place my bets just yet... Why? Well, mainly because of the inner workings of Norwegian politics... Filefjell is gradually improved as we speak, and Hardangervidda will continue to have its proponents - and the Hardanger bridge... Additionally, particularly Haukeli, but also Hemsedal, need considerable investments over several years in order to outperform the alternatives, and it's nigh on impossible to imagine full speed ahead in one valley and no investments at all in the neighbouring one...


I agree with you. And yes, we don’t know the final outcome of the government decision. The only thing we know is that NPRA is also aware about what you have written and they suggested a “Caribou-tunnel” on Rv 7 Hardangervidda, and some other minor improvements as “change money” in case the Conservative Party want to block the decision for Rv 52. A compromise, business as usual…


ElviS77 said:


> I'm more sceptical when it comes to a new Bergen-Odda link


Yes, we have reasons to be skeptical. Bergen Arm can be realized when Rv 52 is the second EW main road, it takes time before it can be realised. But for a better EW connection, for now other projects are more important than the Bergen Arm:
1.	New Røldal and Haukeli tunnels – to get a snow free road
2.	Upgrade E134 Ølen – Etne (part of Haugesund Arm) - to get a fast road to Haugesund/Stavanger

http://www.h-avis.no/e-134/politikk...uneller-forst-sa-arm-til-bergen/s/5-62-264279



54°26′S 3°24′E;135189077 said:


> This part of the E6 already has close to 20 000 AADT, and we are not even talking about a full motorway here. I really detest the leftist rule of Trondheim.......


E6 Malvik – Stjørdal deserves to be a motorway, very far above 12 000 AADT and Stanvanger managed it even with a predicted 6000-8000 AADT to get a motorway for E39. It is everywhere a green dream to limit cars and to get an oversized public transport network. But I am also not against new railways. Why can’t they combine a second track railroad and a motorway upgrade? At least it will save budget.



metasmurf said:


> I don't know whether this is true or not but at least it's promising.





> Når det gjelder infrastrukturen inn og ut av Trondheim skal det bygges doble tunneler og fire felt på E6 uansett hva bystyret i Trondheim måtte finne på å vedta, var beskjeden Per Sandberg kunne gi på vegne av samferdselsministeren."


Can be no other indication than that Minister Ketil Solvik-Olsen has dediced to upgrade E6 to motorway. But we need formal confirmation.


----------



## devo

They could engage "statlig arealplan" (state plan) which would leave Trondheim (and Stjørdal) municipality to only having a consulting role. (høringsinstans)

But it is as you assume metasmurf, by default every single municipality vote over their respective part of a new road. Which means that in theory one municipality can effectively block a road (this has happened). This is one of the reasons for the slow planning process of Norwegian roads. But the current legal framework (Plan- og bygningsloven) was implemented at a time when national construction schemes (rail or road) were few and far apart.

As mentioned though, the government can decide that a road project is to be implemented using a "state plan" rather than a "municipality plan." E 39 from Søgne to Ålgård is going to be built using the framework of a "state plan."


----------



## ChrisZwolle

*bomring*

Two toll cordons will commence on 3 October:

* Førde
* Grenland (Skien & Porsgrunn area)

The Grenland toll cordon will include a congestion charge, with 21 NOK during rush hour and 15 NOK outside of rush hour. The Førde toll cordon charges 26 NOK throughout the day.

Both toll cordons (bomringer) charge in only one direction (inbound in Førde, northbound in the Grenland area) and you are only charged once per hour.


----------



## MattiG

Heico-M said:


> Maybe some road geeks will even go to Norway to look at spectacular tunnels and bridges.


Of course they do. But infrastructure, views and sights are not mutually exclusive. Here is a sample itinerary combining all of those in the SW Norway:

- Oslo, Frognerpark, Ra and Kon-Tiki, Holmenkollen
- Drammen, Spiralen
- Verdens ende
- Porcelain museum Porsgrunn
- Kragerø
- Vrangfoss at Telemark kanal
- Eidsborg Stave Church
- Dalen Hotel
- Setesdal
- Sulerskar
- Road to Lysebotn
- Sola Beach
- Stavanger
- T-Forbindelsen
- Haugesund
- Suldal
- Røldalfjellet
- Hardangerbrua
- Skjervet
- Voss
- Bergen
- Nordhordlandsbrua
- Oppedal-Lavik electric ferry
- Gaularfjellet
- Lærdalsøyri
- Aurland road
- Lærdalstunnelen
- Borgund Stave church
- Tyin
- Descent to Årdal
- Sognefjellet
- Juvvashyttan
- Lom stave church
- Old Strynefjell road
- Dalsnibba
- Geiranger
- Trollstigen
- Trollveggen
- Raumadalen
- Dovrefjellet
- Rondane
- Lillehammer
- Lake Mjøsa
- Eidsvoll
- Back to Oslo

2600 kilometers. Many days.


----------



## Heico-M

Haha, nice one, Matti :applause:kay:kay:

(Aursjøvegen is missing, though )


----------



## metasmurf

I would add Fv 724 Olden - Briksdalsbreen. Maybe not because of the road but the scenery. Fv17 is another favourite of mine with some nice bridges.


----------



## berlinwroclaw

ElviS77 said:


> I believe we'll see considerable investments along the E134


I also hope that there will come considerable investments along the E134. But what we see is not so much unfortunately. In the National Transport Plan 2018-2029, version February 2016 (http://www.ntp.dep.no/Forside/_attachment/1355550/binary/1108800?_ts=154a5190910), there is budget for:

1.	New Haukeli tunnels and improvements mountain road Vågsli-Seljestad (8 billion)
2.	New 2+1 grade separated road Kongsberg- Elgsjø (2 billion)
3.	Upgrade Strømsås tunnel in Drammen with second tube (1.6 billion)

This is too less to make E134 the superior EW road. The new 2+1 road via Rauland (10.9 billion) should be added and also the Notodden bypass (4.6 billion) to make the E134 the fastest EW road in summer. The need may come in 2023. Then more traffic from Stavanger will follow E134. The powerful lobby of Stavanger may help to realise more improvements 



ElviS77 said:


> but I'm more sceptical when it comes to a new Bergen-Odda link - which of course is required to make Haukeli the "one and only" Oslo-Bergen route.


A Bergen-Odda link without new Haukeli tunnels and a new road via Rauland will be useless, because E134 still has to become the fastest, shortest, safest and most reliable EW road, which is not the case yet. Only then, this road will be the "one and only" Oslo-Bergen route. The E134 is the most popular EW road, because it is in more dense populated areas and serves more EW and NS destinations. Unfortunately there is a long way to go, because the government is not in a hurry to come with improvements. We are far away from a 380 km E134 motorway with travelling time of 3,5 hours from Bergen to Oslo, but the cry for it becomes louder and louder every year.
In 2019 with the new Kongsberg bypass the E134 will be the shortest EW road, but you have to follow Fv 362 and Fv 37 via Rauland and not the “classical road” via Seljord. To make the E134 the fastest road is a harder issue. Therefore the Bergen Arm is at this moment not so interesting. Once the new mountain tunnels are ready and the new road via Rauland, for Bergen the E134 will be anyhow more popular than any other EW road. Only then the Bergen Arm becomes interesting.


----------



## Agent 006

54°26′S 3°24′E;135189077 said:


> In the meantime, in a different part of the country.....
> 
> The politicians of Trondheim seriously consider trying to stop expansion of E6 east of the city to 4 lanes. This part of the E6 already has close to 20 000 AADT. Note that we are not even talking about a full motorway here, we are talking about a poor fix to an unacceptable situation, and due to the mediocre geometry and reduced width max speed limit will be 90 km/h even after the expansion. I really detest the leftist rule of Trondheim.......
> 
> http://www.mb.no/nyheter/2016/09/02/Trondheims-rådmann-med-ja-og-nei-til-E6-øst-13271806.ece


Video explaining the ridiculous speed limit of 90 km/h. 

Link: http://www.adressa.no/tv/#!/video/3000833/ikke-110-km-t-paa-nyveien-til-vaernes


----------



## metasmurf

^^

Also, why have 5 interchanges on this short stretch? How about like 3?


----------



## MattiG

metasmurf said:


> I would add Fv 724 Olden - Briksdalsbreen. Maybe not because of the road but the scenery. Fv17 is another favourite of mine with some nice bridges.


True. I tried to plan a round-trip and therefore all the highlights are not there. 

An alternative approach would be dropping and Dovrefjell and Rondade and take the route Dombås-Vågåmo-Jotunheimvegen-Skåbu-Peer Gyntvegen-Lillehammer. And not not skip the Norsk Vegmuseum in Fåberg.

Sightseeing at Valdresflya on Fv51:


----------



## Stafangr

MattiG said:


> Of course they do. But infrastructure, views and sights are not mutually exclusive. Here is a sample itinerary combining all of those in the SW Norway:
> 
> - Stavanger
> - T-Forbindelsen
> - Haugesund


I would add Utstein Abbey.


----------



## Gsus

Agent 006 said:


> Video explaining the ridiculous speed limit of 90 km/h.
> 
> Link: http://www.adressa.no/tv/#!/video/3000833/ikke-110-km-t-paa-nyveien-til-vaernes


The leader of the project does`nt seem to be very good explaining the reason, but it`s really as easy as this: Building a 110km/h-road would mean building a completely new road for a lot of the section. That would be a completely other project, as it would be as good as impossible to connect the alignment of the Stavsjø tunnel and the Hell tunnel. Horizontal curvature is down to around a radius of around 350m through two connecting-curves.

A solution could have been to sign the curves with a lower "through the curve" speed-limit, as is used in a lot of sharp curves through the Rockeys in USA. But that would still mean that the actual speed would be higher for a lot of the vehicles, and that is against all the thinking of traffic safety we have today.

About the political part of this, I`m pretty certain it will be approved by the municipality. This is a political game by the Labour party, who want`s to prioritize E6 south of Trondheim. Remember that the Labour-party built the new four lane expressway right into downtown Trondheim, that was finished as late as 2014. At the same time, they are now collaborating withe the green party, and we all know what they usually mean about projects like this. But it`s good that focus is put on the "bymiljøavtaler". When they define any traffic increase inside a municipality as contrary the the "agreement", it`s a pretty unrealistic thought, as long as there`s national roads traversing the municipality. Traffic through Trondheim city center is a completely other thing, which could be easilier regulated, and would have less consequenses. The city centers was also the focus on Trondheims bymiljøavtale AFAIK. So unless they want to slow down the whole society - and it`s certainly not southern Norway that will loose anything on slow traffic in Trønderlag - this road will be expanded as plannet.


----------



## Agent 006

+ To make train more competative. 110 km/h instead of 90 km/h means more people choose car. Local authorities say they want to give priority to railway development and traffic north of Trondheim, and road development south of the city. But few improvements will actually be done with the railway in the nearest future. So the competative power could only be maintained by substandard roads. This is reactionary marxist bullshitism of course.


----------



## Agent 006

metasmurf said:


> ^^
> 
> Also, why have 5 interchanges on this short stretch? How about like 3?


Seems weird with 5 interchanges. But Stav is only a service area. I also think Reitan was the end of the first stretch to the east from Ranheim, opening before the eastern parts of the expressway, so an interchange here was inevitable.


----------



## coolstuff

berlinwroclaw said:


> I also hope that there will come considerable investments along the E134. But what we see is not so much unfortunately.


Investments in E134 of 11.6 billion are far in the shadow of the proposed investments in ferry-free E39 Hordfast of 43 billion. Therefore focus of the big road projects is on Hordfast. This month a debate in parliament will be organised to discuss the feasibility:

-	Increase of the costs from 19 billion to 43 billion in a few years
-	Commercial feasible, because private ferries may take over much of the traffic
-	Safety risks in case of storm, collisions or terrorism
-	Financial guarantee by the county of Hordaland (30 billion)
-	Risks of innovative technology

Why is Hordfast so important? It absorbs much of the road infrastructure budget in a time many Ministries have to save budget because of the low oil prices. When Hordfast will be postponed or cancelled there will be budget for Hordaland to construct other roads. When Hordfast will be approved, other roads, like E6 and E134 may be reduced in case of new investments.
It is of course wishful thinking, but it is possible that the discussion will go to a “Plan B”, a lower budget solution with less risks. That is the selection of a cheaper alternative than the expensive chosen one. NPRA did already a study in 2007 for a Eastern motorway Bergen-Haugesund, called option K5B.










The Western part of K5A and K5B are also part of a projected road Bergen-Odda, the so-called “Bergen Arm” to E134.

Before Christmas this year, a final decision will be taken about Hordfast. Hordaland already doesn’t want a financial guarantee, and want to transfer to the state. But then the government will come in the position to establish the requirements for the project. We have to wait some months before the decision. Time will tell and only God knows.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

But Norway has an enormous oil fund for rainy days right? Why not use some of it to build this 100-year infrastructure? 43 billion NOK surely is a huge amount of money, but the oil fund is worth over 7 trillion NOK. And a sizable portion can be recovered through tolls, and a portion could be paid through the state budget.

With interest rates as low as they are, investing it may be better than sitting on all that money doing nothing?


----------



## berlinwroclaw

ChrisZwolle said:


> But Norway has an enormous oil fund for rainy days right? Why not use some of it to build this 100-year infrastructure? 43 billion NOK surely is a huge amount of money, but the oil fund is worth over 7 trillion NOK. And a sizable portion can be recovered through tolls, and a portion could be paid through the state budget.
> 
> With interest rates as low as they are, investing it may be better than sitting on all that money doing nothing?


I agree with you that it is better to invest in infrastructure for the new generation. But on the other side I can understand that Norway don't want to invest the oil money immediately such as Saudi Arabia, where they are doing now serious cuts on infrastructure projects. The good news is that because of the unemployment in Western and Southern Norway because of the oil crisis, the government want to invest in infrastructure as compensation, 900 million extra to roads, railroads and maintenance of buildings in that area, https://www.regnskapnorge.no/artikler/skatt/revidert-nasjonalbudsjett-2016/
There is hope that the budget of the Ministry of Transport won't be reduced.


----------



## LegendMeadow

Since I am in Narvik at the moment visiting family we drove to shop at the Swedish border. I snapped some photos of Hålogalandsbrua. 

Here's the album: imgur com(slash)a(slash)d0kCX


----------



## IceCheese

LegendMeadow said:


> Since I am in Narvik at the moment visiting family we drove to shop at the Swedish border. I snapped some photos of Hålogalandsbrua.
> 
> Here's the album: imgur.com/a/d0kCX


I fixed the link


----------



## LegendMeadow

IceCheese said:


> I fixed the link


Thank you. I need at least 10 posts before I can post links.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

Gsus said:


> The leader of the project does`nt seem to be very good explaining the reason, but it`s really as easy as this: Building a 110km/h-road would mean building a completely new road for a lot of the section. That would be a completely other project, as it would be as good as impossible to connect the alignment of the Stavsjø tunnel and the Hell tunnel. Horizontal curvature is down to around a radius of around 350m through two connecting-curves.
> 
> A solution could have been to sign the curves with a lower "through the curve" speed-limit, as is used in a lot of sharp curves through the Rockeys in USA. But that would still mean that the actual speed would be higher for a lot of the vehicles, and that is against all the thinking of traffic safety we have today.


Reduced speed on short sections of motorways are used also in Norway. If the worry was that the a number of motorists had higher speeds, they could just put up some speed cameras. In any case, the alignment issue here (which perhaps could have been solved with a new Hell tunnel) is no excuse for lowering the standard, including reduced width, throughout.


----------



## Ingenioren

devo said:


> As mentioned though, the government can decide that a road project is to be implemented using a "state plan" rather than a "municipality plan." E 39 from Søgne to Ålgård is going to be built using the framework of a "state plan."


Certainly, but as long as these projects financing relies on tolls it's not as easy. If the state decided to build a new motorway without tolls there is nothing the muni can do.


----------



## Mathias Olsen

LegendMeadow said:


> Since I am in Narvik at the moment visiting family we drove to shop at the Swedish border. I snapped some photos of Hålogalandsbrua.
> 
> Here's the album: imgur.com/a/d0kCX


Thanks for your sharp and clear photos. They are better than the recent photos of Statens Vegvesen with fog:










We can see that with Hålogaland bridge of E6 and E10 near Narvik, the first of two cables is making progress. See artist impression of the completed bridge.


----------



## Gsus

https://www.nrk.no/trondelag/ap-vil-ha-firefelts-e6-mellom-stjordal-og-trondheim-1.13130787

Just as I expected. A little bit of show off


----------



## Mathias Olsen

coolstuff said:


> It is of course wishful thinking, but it is possible that the discussion will go to a “Plan B”, a lower budget solution with less risks. That is the selection of a cheaper alternative than the expensive chosen one. NPRA did already a study in 2007 for a Eastern motorway Bergen-Haugesund, called option K5B.












Indeed, such a thing may be possible. The idea to launch a combined section for E39 Bergen-Haugesund (pink on the map) and Bergen Arm to E134 (red on the map) has been launched in 2007 by NPRA. It avoids passing the deep part of Bjørnefjorden by much shorter bridges in the East via Eikelandsosen. But later, Bergen wanted to have a faster connection with a 110 km/h motorway to Haugesund and now we are waiting for the approval of an expensive bridge or tunnel over Bjørnefjorden with a lot of new technology. The original NPRA plan of 2007 with the Eastern bridges and a combined section with the Bergen Arm costs 10.4 billion, more than 33 billion cheaper than the proposed option now. In contrast to the present solution, the original plan will be a commercial success with low risks.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

The new flyovers at the E6-E16 interchange at Oslo-Gardermoen Airport open to traffic this week. They built new direct connectors to and from the north, making this a directional T-interchange. And perhaps the best-designed interchange in all of Norway.


----------



## coolstuff

Mathias Olsen said:


> Indeed, such a thing may be possible. The idea to launch a combined section for E39 Bergen-Haugesund (pink on the map) and Bergen Arm to E134 (red on the map) has been launched in 2007 by NPRA.












This optional had been cancelled after the high cost estimates of the motorway tunnels in Fusa. Then the even more expensive motorway bridge over Bjørnafjord (then estimated at 19 billion, now 43 billion) wasn’t understood as extravagant anymore. But when Hordfast will downgrade the motorway to a “motortrafikkvei” with the internal option, E39 about Fusa will be seen as a cheap option. Now, there is ongoing uncertainty of the approval of Hordfast and new hope for the alternative “internal E39”, via Fusa. The internal E39 will help to stop congestion of the city-motorway trough Bergen, to reduce the time to E16 and Rv. 7 with 15 minutes, and to E134 with 30 minutes.
Prime Minister Erna Solberg said already in March 2016 that E39 Hordfast should be done in a more simple way and to consider in a precise way what to do. That is in contradiction with the Minister of Transport, who wants a direct 110 km/h motorway with the Bjørnafjord bridge. But the discussion will give the “internal E39” a new chance.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

ChrisZwolle said:


> The new flyovers at the E6-E16 interchange at Oslo-Gardermoen Airport open to traffic this week. They built new direct connectors to and from the north, making this a directional T-interchange. And perhaps the best-designed interchange in all of Norway.


I always cringe when I see a map that is rotated :nuts:


----------



## MattiG

54°26′S 3°24′E;135362822 said:


> I always cringe when I see a map that is rotated :nuts:


Basically, it is not a map but a plan printed on a map. For obvious reasons, the road construction plans are usually positioned in a way where the main road to be built is shown horizontally on a landscape sheet.

BTW, most maps are rotated, depending on their scale and projection. For example, in this map over Norway, the sides do not point to the north. In Finnmark, the grid north differs about 15+ degrees from the true north.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

MattiG said:


> Basically, it is not a map but a plan printed on a map. For obvious reasons, the road construction plans are usually positioned in a way where the main road to be built is shown horizontally on a landscape sheet.
> 
> BTW, most maps are rotated, depending on their scale and projection. For example, in this map over Norway, the sides do not point to the north. In Finnmark, the grid north differs about 15+ degrees from the true north.


I do not see any map in your post, but with the common Mercator projection, the sides of the map should indeed point to the true north. For smaller maps like the highway map (or plan if you like) posted by Chris the projection really does not matter much. The magnetic pole is a different story, hence the compass needle is indeed 11 degrees misaligned with the maps of eastern Finnmark, but that is because the magnetic north is not co-located with the true north. In addition the magnetic north is constantly on the move, and hence it would be a very bad reference for maps.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

Seems like the "Ice Road Rescue" is on in every European country now, the world next?








http://www.natgeotv.com/uk/shows/natgeo/ice-road-rescue

Every operation is "extremely dangerous". I wonder how these rescuers are allowed to continue their work in safety obsessed Norway :lol:


----------



## Heico-M

54°26′S 3°24′E;135375503 said:


> Seems like the "Ice Road Rescue" is on in every European country now, the world next?
> 
> http://www.natgeotv.com/uk/shows/natgeo/ice-road-rescue
> 
> Every operation is "extremely dangerous". I wonder how these rescuers are allowed to continue their work in safety obsessed Norway :lol:


"Safety-obsessed", that hits it. 

Isn't that one of the reasons they are planning tunnels of endless lengths under virtually all mountain passes?

How about a guardrail on Preikestolen? :lol:


----------



## MattiG

54°26′S 3°24′E;135375503 said:


> Seems like the "Ice Road Rescue" is on in every European country now, the world next?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.natgeotv.com/uk/shows/natgeo/ice-road-rescue
> 
> Every operation is "extremely dangerous". I wonder how these rescuers are allowed to continue their work in safety obsessed Norway :lol:


There must be a hero in every story targeted into the American market. And everything is measured in money.


----------



## keokiracer

Seems like NatGeo is trying to compete with Discovery's _Highway Thru Hell_.


----------



## sotonsi

Norway is proposing two E Road extensions at the 111th Session of the UNECE Working Party on Road Transport next month:

Extend the E134 from Drammen to Vassum over Rv23 and extend the E45 to Alta (co-proposed by Finland) over Kt93 and Rv93.

Both these strike me as pretty much no-brainers that will be approved. The only difficulty is that the E45 extension through Sweden ends just south of the border because the UNECE got funny about Finland not being involved when Sweden wanted to end it at the border (I can't recall if Finland were asked and said 'no' or weren't asked and would have been willing to have it end at E8). That said, they blocked Estonia's proposal for E265 that would take a ferry to Sweden and end at the port due to a lack of Swedish involvement but have it in their most recent listing.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Interesting. Another option would be to run E134 from Drammen to Oslo and E18 through the Oslofjordtunnel, creating a shorter east-west route for E18. But from a regional perspective, a single road number for Oslo - Kristiansand traffic makes more sense than E134 + E18.

Another observation on the map is that E16 Oslo - Hønefoss still exists not only on the signage, but also on the map. E16 was rerouted from Hønefoss to Gardermoen, bypassing Oslo to the north.


----------



## sotonsi

ChrisZwolle said:


> Another observation on the map is that E16 Oslo - Hønefoss still exists not only on the signage, but also on the map. E16 was rerouted from Hønefoss to Gardermoen, bypassing Oslo to the north.


Norway was always adamant that Oslo-Hønefoss would remain E16, becoming a branch*. The official description says "Bergen - ... - Hønefoss (Oslo) - Gardermoen - ..." with ... filling in some placenames.

*which, while this is the longest one by some way, is rather common in Norway.


----------



## berlinwroclaw

ChrisZwolle said:


> But from a regional perspective, a single road number for Oslo - Kristiansand traffic makes more sense than E134 + E18.


True. Till foreseeable future AADT of E18 to Kristiansand will be higher than the E134. There has been a proposal to renumber Rv 23 to E134 to get an EW road from westcoast to E6 Sweden. In that case, Drammen-Lierstanda will have a double number E18 + E134. But in case the Lierdiagonalen (connection E134 to Drammen-North) will be realised the double number section will be even smaller.


----------



## MattiG

sotonsi said:


> The only difficulty is that the E45 extension through Sweden ends just south of the border because the UNECE got funny about Finland not being involved when Sweden wanted to end it at the border (I can't recall if Finland were asked and said 'no' or weren't asked and would have been willing to have it end at E8).


The E45 extension was on the agenda of the Working Party session 99 in 2005. The proposal is here: http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/trans/doc/2005/sc1/TRANS-SC1-2005-03e.pdf

As the paper shows, the initiative was submitted by Sweden only. It was not 100% honest: There is a statement "In Karesuando, the road ends close to the road E 8." That is not true: The road continues on the Finnish side and joins the E8 after about 800 meters.

As Finland has less passion to E roads, it just ignored the proposal. The name of the Finnish twin village is Karesuvanto. This small difference made it possible for Finland to say than Finland has nothing to do with the case. 

I believe most the working party members did not understand what they agreed on: 1690 kilometers of new E road not connecting to the E road network at the north end but leaving a gap of less than one kilometer,

Soon afterwards, Norway made a proposal to Finland that the E45 should be extended to Alta to reach E6. Finland said no. Now, it seems to me that Norway and Finland have reached a consensus on the issue. (Sweden usually expresses some big brother attitude to its neighbors. Therefore it is sometimes left alone on principle.)

There will be a minimal cost involved. Some number signs need to be ordered.


----------



## Mathias Olsen

In Autumn 2017 the Rv 23 Drammen-Vassum will be renumbered to E134. The E134 to Haugesund will be on the signs of E6 near Vassum.










Lierdiagonalen will connect Hokksund with Kryss, north of Drammen. This proposal will bypass the annoying four roundabouts on E134 Drammen- Hokksund. Realisation is not clear. Instead of that Strømsåstunnelen in Drammen will get a second tube, making Lierdiagonalen less necessary.


----------



## sotonsi

MattiG said:


> As the paper shows, the initiative was submitted by Sweden only. It was not 100% honest: There is a statement "In Karesuando, the road ends close to the road E 8."


That's accurate. It ends close to the E8.


> That is not true: The road continues on the Finnish side and joins the E8 after about 800 meters.


From the E45/R99 junction, where both routes end end-on, an unnumbered road (that's a turn from the main roads) goes to the Finnish border, where it becomes Mt959 which ends a few hundred metres away at the E8.


----------



## MattiG

sotonsi said:


> That's accurate. It ends close to the E8.From the E45/R99 junction, where both routes end end-on, an unnumbered road (that's a turn from the main roads) goes to the Finnish border, where it becomes Mt959 which ends a few hundred metres away at the E8.


No, the road does not end. The number changes. These are two different things.

The proposal text gives an impression that road in Karesuando is a dead end, like the North Cape, for example.


----------



## sotonsi

MattiG said:


> No, the road does not end. The number changes. These are two different things.


Not necessarily in English, and the context has that the road that is the object of the sentence "In Karesuando, the road ends close to the road E8." is 'Swedish national road 45' that has been the object of the other sentences in the paragraph. The road is synonymous with the number here!

However, even if you refuse to take that definition, the road definitely doesn't go to Finland - it carries on (as R99 and as, for a few km, a continuation of Laestadiuvegen) to Muodoslompolo where it ends at a T-junction. There is a road to Finland from the end of the E45, but is it not the same one (it's a side turn, has a different name, etc).


> The proposal text gives an impression that road in Karesuando is a dead end, like the North Cape, for example.


As a native English speaker, it definitely doesn't.

And given they explicitly talk about the E8 "close", that hardly seems like a dead end, or certainly not a permanent one. If the UNECE actually wanted the routes to join up they'd have asked about some sort of way of crossing across the border to the E8 and/or whether they had talked with Finland about extending the E45 to the E8. Seems like they didn't care!


----------



## ChrisZwolle

*E6 Sørkjosen, Troms*

The tunnel breakthrough of the Sørkjosen Tunnel on E6 in Troms is planned for next Wednesday, 21 September. It is a 4.6 kilometer long tunnel. It is planned to open in late 2017 / early 2018.


----------



## Mathias Olsen

*Photos Ryfylke tourist road*

National Tourist Road Ryfylke via Rv 13 and Fv 520 has been extended with a new attraction near the old zinc mines near Sauda. NPRA has opened this tourist attraction on 8 September 2016. Here some photos of this tourist road from Stavanger to Røldal. One of the more popular tourist roads.

Lysefjorden. Bridge that connects Rv 13 with Fv 520 via Fv 46










Allmannajuvet, a new attraction in the former zinc mines (1881-1899) area in Sauda near Fv 520










Saudafjorden










Honganvikfossen, Saudafjorden










Svandalsfossen, Fv 520










Saudafjellet. In winter many times closed.










Røldal, where the Rv 13 and Fv 520 connect with E134


----------



## ChrisZwolle

I want to visit that area on my next trip to Norway 

So far I've been in the area of Rv. 7 and E16 in 2014 and the area between Sognefjord & Trondheim in 2016. So the next time I want to visit a more southern region.


----------



## metasmurf

^^ This area is on my list as well, but it's almost as far away for me as it is for you. It would take me almost 16 hours to drive to Sauda.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

*E6 Mjøsa*

I filmed E6 along Lake Mjøsa in June. It's one of the most scenic motorways in Norway.


----------



## LegendMeadow

ChrisZwolle said:


> I filmed E6 along Lake Mjøsa in June. It's one of the most scenic motorways in Norway.


Do you know why they used pre-rusted barriers on this stretch of road? It looks like an old motorway in Italy.


----------



## italystf

LegendMeadow said:


> Do you know why they used pre-rusted barriers on this stretch of road? It looks like an old motorway in Italy.


Only A22 in Italy has such barriers, they're rusted on purpose, maybe because they aestetically fit better in nature compared to shiny steel ones.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

LegendMeadow said:


> Do you know why they used pre-rusted barriers on this stretch of road? It looks like an old motorway in Italy.


All bigger highway projects in Norway have a "style manual". In this particular project, Corten steel was chosen because it was believed to blend better with the the landscape around it. However, the corrosion resistance was less than expected, especially in locations where water collects, and ahead most Norwegian roads will continue using traditional galvanized, or in some cases painted, steel.


----------



## metasmurf

*Tunnel breakthrough on E6 at Røssvoll*

The breakthrough on a new tunnel on E6 at Røssvoll north of Mo I Rana in Nordland was completed earlier this month.









_Photo: Statens Vegvesen_

The tunnel as well as some widening of the existing road and some in new alignment are part of the the 5,19 billion NOK project E6 Helgeland










The tunnel and the new road are set out to be completed in 2018 and will replace one of the worst parts of E6 in Nordland, which I've had the pleasure of driving myself.


----------



## Rob73

^^ So it's not just Molde Politi driving around in ancient Volvo V70's, we also have an even older Ford Mondeo. I can't understand why a country as wealthy as Norway doesn't buy police cars on a rolling basis, 10 year old or older vehicles have no place in a police force.


----------



## Agent 006

110 km/h still possible some places around Trondheim?

http://www.adressa.no/tv/#!/video/3000915/her-vil-nye-veier-ha-110-i-troendelag


----------



## Stafangr

Rob73 said:


> ^^ So it's not just Molde Politi driving around in ancient Volvo V70's, we also have an even older Ford Mondeo. I can't understand why a country as wealthy as Norway doesn't buy police cars on a rolling basis, 10 year old or older vehicles have no place in a police force.


That Street View-picture is from 2010.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

*Riksvei 3*

The Rv.3 / Rv. 25 upgrade from Løten to Elverum.






The 2x2 segment is not very long. Too bad there will be a simple roundabout at Elverum, instead of an interchange with Rv. 3 being the through route. 

They're going to build a lot of small arch bridges for this project.


----------



## Mathias Olsen

ChrisZwolle said:


> The Rv.3 / Rv. 25 upgrade from Løten to Elverum.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 2x2 segment is not very long. Too bad there will be a simple roundabout at Elverum, instead of an interchange with Rv. 3 being the through route.
> 
> They're going to build a lot of small arch bridges for this project.


We hoped Rv 3 would be constructed as a full 2x2 motorway all the way to Trondheim. What we get is a crippled road with roundabouts and 1+1 stretches. Doesn't the government takes Rv 3 serious as a long distance road? Didn't they learn from the annoying roundabouts in Kongsberg on E134? Here we go again: just local road improvements as in the previous decades hno:


----------



## ChrisZwolle

*E18 Larvik*

The Farris Bridge construction progress in Larvik. It's part of the E18 motorway upgrade.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

*E6 Gudbrandsdalen*

The 33 kilometer long new E6 from Frya to Sjoa (Ringebu - Otta) will open to traffic on 17 December.


----------



## italystf

^^ Why they're building E6 motorway north of Lillehammer? Some time ago there was a post saying that Rv3 is the main road Oslo-Trondheim and a future motorway between the two cities would follow that route.


----------



## berlinwroclaw

italystf said:


> ^^ Why they're building E6 motorway north of Lillehammer? Some time ago there was a post saying that Rv3 is the main road Oslo-Trondheim and a future motorway between the two cities would follow that route.


It suggests that NPRA with silent approval of the government want to upgrade the E6 and not the Rv3. Last update plans of Rv3 are below expectations and seem to limit attraction of Rv3. There is much more focus on upgrading E6. The only missing link for an grade separated E6 expressway Oslo-Trondheim seems to be passing the Dovre plateau. Perhaps E6 is more interesting because it covers a wider and more dense populated area. However, some expensive tunnels may be needed to mitigate the attraction of Rv3.


----------



## MattiG

italystf said:


> Some time ago there was a post saying that Rv3 is the main road Oslo-Trondheim and a future motorway between the two cities would follow that route.


Everything written into the internet is not necessarily true.


----------



## berlinwroclaw

OnTheNorthRoad said:


> There are 30 departures from Oslo to Trondheim every day. On average, there's a plane going every 25 mins or so.


Outside rush hours you have to wait much longer. In the afternoon up to 3 hours. Not all flights are low budget.



OnTheNorthRoad said:


> Both getting to OSL and taking the plane is super easy and relaxing;


Are you sure? What is so super easy with waiting for the flight, security control, including inspecting intimate parts? 
What is so relaxing, while sitting in a always-too-narrow seat where all the time others have to pass your seat going to the toilet? Yes, even when you are flying in business class it is to narrow, you have no privacy like in the car and you cannot take the bags you want, you have to look to video's you don't want and all the time they start the flight with the message that things may go wrong and you have to be prepared for that! Are you really sure flying is so easy? Don't forget the annoying going to the airport on departure and arrival. 



OnTheNorthRoad said:


> driving is a night mare in comparison (seriously watching out for moose in the darkness..).


You should be for 1 month in another country and then take a 480 km motorway in the dark. Even done driving on a long distance motorway of 480 km in the dark? It is a matter of experience, after 2 times you get used to it.
It is really easy and safe with 130 km/h. You only have to follow the red lights of the other.



OnTheNorthRoad said:


> The money issue is actually in favour of air travel, since many young people living in Oslo don't need to own a car. Air fares are nothing compared to the costs of car ownership.


When I want to go from Oslo to Trondheim on Monday October 3, I have to pay NOK 2,459 (274 euro). You only have reduction when the airline company decides you can fly.
An average car needs on a motorway Trondheim-Oslo of 480 km just 15 liter that is only NOK 480 (53 euro). The difference becomes dramatic when you travel with others, because the costs for the car trip will be almost the same, while you pay the full price for a flight.



OnTheNorthRoad said:


> "Normal" norwegians wouldn't consider driving to central or southern europe for instance, or driving to northern norway. Aint really got anything to do with road quality.


Are you sure? A motorway is much safer, faster and easier than the Rv3 or E6 to Kolomoen. The problem you and your friends take the plane is that there is no motorway Kolomoen-Trondheim. More precise: the Trondheim lobby (and north of Trondheim) is almost neglectible compared to other regions like the Westcoast for motorway to Oslo. You can check out the relation Oslo-Kristiansand. Air traffic will be a loser soon as the motorway will be completed.


----------



## Mathias Olsen

OnTheNorthRoad said:


> The norwegians that are hooked onto air travel won't change and train is a more realistic alternative in the future imo (since it's more comfortable).



Perhaps you missed the discussion about air traffic or driving a motorway this summer.
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=133408378&postcount=3753










Here a short summary. For many people, the huge domestic air traffic in Norway is senseless and unsustainable. When there are motorways Trondheim-Oslo and Bergen-Oslo, much of the air traffic will be transferred to motorways, with travelling time below 4 hours both Trondheim-Oslo and Bergen-Oslo .
People who fly such short distances should feel responsibility for the air pollution. Electric cars will dominate Norway next decade and help to establish true sustainability.


----------



## OnTheNorthRoad

berlinwroclaw said:


> Outside rush hours you have to wait much longer. In the afternoon up to 3 hours. Not all flights are low budget.


Not true at all; where do you get this from? Thin air? There are flights all day from around 07 to 2200. All flights are by either Norwegian or SAS, the price difference for economy tickets is not big.

This is monday's schedule between 14 and 19:
1405
1455
1540
1620
1620
1700
1700
1730
1740
1810
1820
1840
1900
1930



> Are you sure? What is so super easy with waiting for the flight, security control, including inspecting intimate parts?
> What is so relaxing, while sitting in a always-too-narrow seat where all the time others have to pass your seat going to the toilet? Yes, even when you are flying in business class it is to narrow, you have no privacy like in the car and you cannot take the bags you want, you have to look to video's you don't want and all the time they start the flight with the message that things may go wrong and you have to be prepared for that! Are you really sure flying is so easy? Don't forget the annoying going to the airport on departure and arrival.


Yes I'm sure. The security control at OSL takes 5 mins. Flying is much safer than driving, much much safer, no comparison. Worrying about an accident because of the security demo as an argument againt flying is simply irrationality on display. 

In-flight comfort is not an issue at all for short, domestic flights - it's over in a second it feels like. People generally don't have to use the toilet for instance on a flight that doesn't take an hour. Flying is pleasant. Even if total travel time is only 50% of car travel, you get to use your legs and move around more, you don't have to sit tight for as many hours, you have access to amenities, you can do other things like reading, working, shopping and so on.



> You should be for 1 month in another country and then take a 480 km motorway in the dark. Even done driving on a long distance motorway of 480 km in the dark? It is a matter of experience, after 2 times you get used to it.
> It is really easy and safe with 130 km/h. You only have to follow the red lights of the other.


Obviously what is more pleasant and comfortable is subjective, but what is safer is not. And no, compared to air travel, it is not safe at all. And I'm pretty sure a lot of people find it far more comfortable to either take the train or take the plane, where they can relax and do other things. 



> When I want to go from Oslo to Trondheim on Monday October 3, I have to pay NOK 2,459 (274 euro). You only have reduction when the airline company decides you can fly.
> An average car needs on a motorway Trondheim-Oslo of 480 km just 15 liter that is only NOK 480 (53 euro). The difference becomes dramatic when you travel with others, because the costs for the car trip will be almost the same, while you pay the full price for a flight.


Ah, the scientifically accurate method of finding random airline ticket to use as a general basis for comparison. If you read the study I linked to,you'll find that they did this comparison and their conclusion was completely different. 

I went to norwegian.com and found most tickets were available at prices around 1000 NOK, some (4 out of 14) were 1400-1500: http://www.norwegian.no/booking/fly...&R_SelectedDay=03&CurrencyCode=NOK&TripType=2



> The problem you and your friends take the plane is that there is no motorway Kolomoen-Trondheim.


No it's not. The car fans can tell themselves this as much as they want,but norwegians will continue to fly between Oslo and Trondheim regardless of road quality. The only thing that will put a serious dent into the numbers, more than a couple of percentage points would be serious service upgrades to the train connections.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

At 120 km/h Trondheim - Oslo will take around 4 hours. With some shortcuts on the current alignment the time can be reduced even more. Air travel takes at least 3 hours from curb to curb (or door to door if you like) , more if you check-in luggage or one of your destinations are not centrally located. In addition there is a lot of hassle associated with air travel due to security checks, boarding, and transitions between modes of transportation. 

Air travel is cheap today, but with the environmental commitments and political landscape we see now, 
there is no doubt that the cost of at least domestic air travel should and will increase considerably. Road traffic will during the next decade become emission free in Norway and costs may even go down. Due to weight constraints, it is hard to see how air travel could do the same in the foreseeable future. 


Today all of my work travels Oslo - Trondheim are by air, and private travels are split approximately 45/50/5 between air, car and train (I'm a family man!) . With comparable travel time between air and road travel, less hassle using a car or bus, and steeply increasing costs for air travel, it is not difficult to imagine that there could be a dramatic shift in travel preferences. 

The current rail service is both slow and expensive and hence has a small share of the transportation work. A high speed railway could lead to total travel time comparable to the other alternatives, but at an incredible cost (HSR geometric requirements are much more demanding (stiffer) than for motorways) and dubious environmental impact. After HSR plans were shelved a few years back I do not see it as a realistic or even desirable alternative. Currently the train traffic account for 5 % of long distance travel (I'm on the national average at least privately! ), a number that has been stable over the last couple of decades.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

*Ørnesvingen*

The famous Ørnesvingen of Fylkesvei 63 near Geiranger.


Fylkesvei 63 Ørnesvingen-2 by European Roads, on Flickr

This is the view from there:

Geirangerfjord-3 by European Roads, on Flickr


----------



## berlinwroclaw

OnTheNorthRoad said:


> The car fans can tell themselves this as much as they want,but norwegians will continue to fly between Oslo and Trondheim regardless of road quality.


Do you have any idea why Bergen, Trondheim and other domestic airports are oversized, compared with similar airports in other countries? Other countries have motorways between the top 4 cities and Norway not.


----------



## Ingenioren

Those who don't like driving prefere motorways i guess, here are the alternatives from Halden to Gardermoen - even with the 30-60 min expected delay on Ring3 + tolls people i've spoken too still prefere the motorway... 

https://www.google.no/maps/dir/Gard...3ce94!2m2!1d11.3937252!2d59.1140935!5i2?hl=no


----------



## OnTheNorthRoad

berlinwroclaw said:


> Do you have any idea why Bergen, Trondheim and other domestic airports are oversized, compared with similar airports in other countries? Other countries have motorways between the top 4 cities and Norway not.


Well, there are several reasons besides road quality:
1.)Distance between main city pairs
2.)Lack of high speed rail service between main city pairs
3.)Economy, norwegians have money and travel a lot.
4.)Topography/climate

Let's stick to Oslo - Trondheim. A realistic motorway alternative could shave the travel time down to 4.5-5hrs. I hear 4hrs, but that is not realistic. 35-40% of the trips are work related. Good luck getting them to drive cars. You then only need a modest percentage of leisure travellers to fly to get a mode split comparable to what we had in 2009. It was 52% air travel then, but it might be some points higher today since air travel btw OSL and TRD has increased by 10% since that time.

So yes, a 4.5-5hrs motorway would of course change some people's choices, but not many enough to dramatically change the picture. 

Got to remember that a big difference between city pairs in continental europe and Oslo-Trondheim is quality of rail service. You might get a business man to take a high speed train, but you won't get him to drive.


----------



## berlinwroclaw

OnTheNorthRoad said:


> Oslo - Trondheim. A realistic motorway alternative could shave the travel time down to 4.5-5hrs. I hear 4hrs, but that is not realistic.


The motorway Oslo-Trondheim will have a length of 480 km. Minister of Transport has announced a speed limit of 130 km/h can be allowed in future. 
http://www.bt.no/nyheter/lokalt/Foreslar-130-kmt-pa-nye-E39-280464b.html
Travel time of the motorway Oslo-Trondheim will be with 130 km/h 3 hours 42 minutes. Compare motorway Oslo-Trondheim with motorway E134 Oslo-Bergen of 380 km. With speed limit 130 km/h it is less than 3 hours. 

Those distances and travel times can be compared with motorways between big cities of other countries. The airports of similar foreign cities are small compared with Bergen en Trondheim. Therefore, after completion motorways Oslo-Trondheim and Oslo-Bergen, Norwegian domestic air traffic will be like in other countries.



OnTheNorthRoad said:


> It was 52% air travel then, but it might be some points higher today since air travel btw OSL and TRD has increased by 10% since that time.


Oil will be over in 2040. Now more than 66% of Norwegian export. Oil will become more and more expensive, so air traffic will become more and more expensive. Norway cannot live from fish and wood in 2040, but needs competitive export connections. Check out that every poor country desperate constructs motorways. The young generation will be the greatest supporters for motorways and unless Norway wants to be a poor country, there will be motorways Oslo-Trondheim and Oslo-Bergen in 2040.


----------



## coolstuff

54°26′S 3°24′E;135705592 said:


> with the environmental commitments and political landscape we see now


Government is indeed aware of environmental commitments. It is a big taboo and public secret that airports are very bad for people who live within 10 km from the airport runways. The governments in all countries have made secret agreements not to publish health statistics about areas near airports. For Trondheim airport, Stjørdal (23000 inhabitants) is very close to the airport. For Gardermoen airport, Jessheim (13000 inhabitants) is within 10 km range.
Now living by airports within 10 km will have a higher chance of cancer:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-17419/Now-living-airports-cancer.html or of asthma, COPD and heart problems because of exposure to carbon monoxide from planes may impact on health: 
http://www.nhs.uk/news/2015/10October/Pages/Living-near-an-airport-may-be-bad-for-your-health.aspx
By flying, be aware you contribute to bad health to people. Norway has cheap and sustainable electric power in abundance for alternative mobility. 










The only fast and sustainable mobility alternative is an electric car, since long-distance high-speed trains has been considered as too expensive. Better support the sustainable society by taking an electric car with better life expectations for all people. You will have peace with all people and peace with yourself.


----------



## OnTheNorthRoad

coolstuff said:


> It is a big taboo and public secret that airports are very bad for people who live within 10 km from the airport runways. The governments in all countries have made *secret agreements* not to publish health statistics about areas near airports.


Source?

The sustainable way of living is urban and based on public transport.

Despite the EV incentives, car emissions keep increasing: http://www.tu.no/artikler/derfor-oker-utslippene-fra-veitrafikken/350296#cxrecs_s

Not to mention that the incentives have made people buy more cars, not necessarily replaced their fossil cars. This has a largely unnoticed, but devastating emissions effect due to the very Co2-intensive EV car and battery production. 

It takes 16t of Co2 to produce a Tesla Model S (source). I can fly from Oslo to Trondheim 500 times before I've reached that number (source). The reality is that I, who don't need to own a car, will never in my life get near the emissions of someone who buys cars like Tesla Model S. And the vast majority of my travelling is extremely low on emissions compared to car use, not to mention that it is far more space efficient, city friendly and people friendly.


----------



## coolstuff

OnTheNorthRoad said:


> Source?
> 
> The sustainable way of living is urban and based on public transport.
> 
> Despite the EV incentives, car emissions keep increasing: http://www.tu.no/artikler/derfor-oker-utslippene-fra-veitrafikken/350296#cxrecs_s
> 
> Not to mention that the incentives have made people buy more cars, not necessarily replaced their fossil cars. This has a largely unnoticed, but devastating emissions effect due to the very Co2-intensive EV car and battery production.
> 
> It takes 16t of Co2 to produce a Tesla Model S (source). I can fly from Oslo to Trondheim 500 times before I've reached that number (source). The reality is that I, who don't need to own a car, will never in my life get near the emissions of someone who buys cars like Tesla Model S. And the vast majority of my travelling is extremely low on emissions compared to car use, not to mention that it is far more space efficient, city friendly and people friendly.


Did you read the provided sources from my previous post? FYI: The governments in all countries have made secret agreements not to publish health statistics about areas near airports. Thanks to the freedom of communication in many countries we know the facts.

About your argument that people will buy by more cars, not necessarily replaced their fossil cars: like many countries, Norway has plans to stop sales of non-emission free cars by 2025. Norway doesn’t want to give up its leader position on sustainable mobility.

Pollution impact is not only carbon, but like on my previous post much poison for people comes from kerosine and small particles from e.g. aircraft and this is well supported by respected sources. Read the following resource. Air traffic has the highest impact on environment of all mobility: http://www.davidsuzuki.org/issues/c...-change-basics/air-travel-and-climate-change/.

It may take much C02 to produce a tesla model s, but producing an aircraft and maintenance of an airport is also not emission-free. Tesla Model S is one of the biggest EV on the market, most people cannot afford such a car but they can afford much smaller and environment friendlier produced vehicles, such as Nissan Leaf or VW e-Golf. Furthermore express buses will travel between Oslo and Trondheim for fast, sustainable mobility by public transport via the motorway Oslo-Trondheim.


----------



## OnTheNorthRoad

I meant source for the claim that governments are covering up health effects of local pollution from aviation. 

Norway doesn't have a leading position in sustainable mobility. There is far too much sprawl and for too much car use overall for that to be a reality. Oslo is the only city where the car share is close to acceptably low (though of course still too high) with 36%.

Other cities have car shares over 50%, Stavanger over 60%.

Anyway, you could talk to norwegians all day about the proven superiority of dense living and PT when it comes to efficiency _and_ sustainability, but it goes in through one ear and out through the other 

The point is, simply, since the car enthusiasts now claim to be environmental advocates, why aren't they pushing for the superior solutions both with regards to economic efficiency, sustainability and well being?


----------



## ChrisZwolle

OnTheNorthRoad said:


> the proven superiority of dense living and PT when it comes to efficiency _and_ sustainability


That's a bit of a dubious claim. High density locations often have severely unaffordable housing, no matter how many houses / apartments are built. And dense cities are much more congested, as there are far more traffic movements per km² than in lower density locations, which offsets the lower car usage per capita.

One of the longest commuting times to work in the U.S. are recorded in... Manhattan. Not to mention this 'superior dense living' is not the actual reality in Norway (and much of Europe), where most people live in a single-family houses outside of city centers. 70 percent of Norwegian households with children live in a detached house.


----------



## EasySeven

^^

Can you provide source on the Manhattan having longer commutes claim. It's not that I don't believe it, maybe just a little , but its also very interesting to me to see the exact times.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

You can check every county in the U.S. at the Quickfacts tool of the U.S. Census Bureau. Manhattan has a mean travel time to work of 30.6 minutes, which is one of the longest in the U.S., especially considering its short distances. For example sprawled-out Harris County (Houston) has a 27.7 minute travel time to work, even with the massive congestion.


----------



## keokiracer

It's because a lot of people in Manhattan use public transport which has longer commute times. I did an essay on this but my laptop is currently in repairs otherwise I could've given you a link or 2 

It should be somewhere in this list.

edit: Ah, Chris has the correct link kay:


----------



## Mathias Olsen

OnTheNorthRoad said:


> The point is, simply, since the car enthusiasts now claim to be environmental advocates, why aren't they pushing for the superior solutions both with regards to economic efficiency, sustainability and well being?


It is not a behavior of enthousiasm, but a solution for society. The idea to construct environment friendly motorway infrastructure did not come from car enthusiasts. In fact Norway is a country of fishermen and woodcutters and has almost no car enthusiasts  The idea can from no less Prof. Dag Bjørnland, considered as the best social economist of the country: http://www.ba.no/nyheter/ny-vei-kan-...s/1-41-7421676. He came with a detail plan, good for both environment and economy for a 4-lane E134 motorway Bergen-Oslo. 



berlinwroclaw said:


> The young generation will be the greatest supporters for motorways and unless Norway wants to be a poor country, there will be motorways Oslo-Trondheim and Oslo-Bergen in 2040.


It will go gradually. In the present philosophy of NPRA and government, missing parts of the motorway Oslo-Trondheim won’t unfortunately be constructed immediately as motorway. It will be grade separated expressway and step by step. But still a major improvement and another reduction of travel time. Such as a brandnew E6 expressway north of Lillehammer.










When traffic volume will be higher, upgrade to motorway will be done, as we have seen on E6 Gardermoen-Kolomoen.










Only challenge for the motorway Oslo-Trondheim is the Dovre plateau. But also this can be solved by e.g. constructing Ulsberg-Rv 3 Stugusjoen - Rv29-Rv27- E6 Ringebu- E6 Lillehammer (184 km), costs 17 billion. http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=134737735&postcount=4182
Yes, not much more than 17 billion is needed to complete the motorway Oslo-Trondheim outside current plans. It wil be faster and cheaper to construct than the E134 motorway Oslo-Bergen. Still, motorway Oslo-Bergen will be expected to be earlier available, because of the massive support of the westcoast, the center of Norway’s oil industry.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

A big transport over Haukelifjell:


----------



## ChrisZwolle

*E6 Oslo - Gardermoen*

Some photos of E6 from Oslo to Gardermoen.

1. 

E6-1 by European Roads, on Flickr

2. 

E6-2 by European Roads, on Flickr

3. 

E6-4 by European Roads, on Flickr

4. 

E6-6 by European Roads, on Flickr

5. 

E6-8 by European Roads, on Flickr

6. 

E6-10 by European Roads, on Flickr

7. 

E6-15 by European Roads, on Flickr

8. 

E6-17 by European Roads, on Flickr

9. 

E6-18 by European Roads, on Flickr

10. 110 km/h.

E6-20 by European Roads, on Flickr

11. 

E6-22 by European Roads, on Flickr

12. 

E6-24 by European Roads, on Flickr

13. 

E6-25 by European Roads, on Flickr

14. 

E6-28 by European Roads, on Flickr

15. 

E6-30 by European Roads, on Flickr


----------



## Ingenioren

No photo of the new flyover?


----------



## ChrisZwolle

I took the photos in June, it wasn't completed back then


----------



## OulaL

Silly how E16 has been squeezed to the old green square in place of 2...

And for that matter, actually the whole E16 east of Hønefoss is silly.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

*Fylkesvei 63 to Geiranger*

I made a video of Fylkesvei 63 (County Road 63) to Geiranger. It's one of the top drives in Norway and Europe.


----------



## cinxxx

^^When I drove there it was all filled with fog


----------



## Mathias Olsen

The budget for 2017 NPRA is 30.5 billion, an increase of 3.7%. The good news is:

1.	Budget of NPRA is growing for several years now
2.	Increase comes almost entirely to new road construction and expansion 

Important new motorway projects for 2017:

1.	E39 Stavanger-Haugesund: construction Boknafjordtunnel (26.5 km)
2.	E16 Oslo-Hønefoss

For the rest the normal policy of local projects. Let's hope that at least the missing stretches of the expressway network with East-West and North-South corridors will be planned soon after the approval of the National Transport Plan in June 2017.


----------



## MattiG

OulaL said:


> Silly how E16 has been squeezed to the old green square in place of 2...
> 
> And for that matter, actually the whole E16 east of Hønefoss is silly.


In my opinion, frankly, the E16 should be extended to Finland. Here is my proposal, inspired by Norway and Sweden:


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Mathias Olsen said:


> The budget for 2017 NPRA is 30.5 billion, an increase of 3.7%.


That's € 3.4 billion for a population of 5 million. I think the 'per capita' spending on roads in Norway is much higher than most other countries. For example in the Netherlands (pop. 17 million) the budget is only € 2.4 billion. True, that's for only 2,500 km of roads, but even provincial road spending is not much more than € 1 billion combined (including maintenance, construction & operations).


----------



## berlinwroclaw

ChrisZwolle said:


> That's € 3.4 billion for a population of 5 million. I think the 'per capita' spending on roads in Norway is much higher than most other countries. For example in the Netherlands (pop. 17 million) the budget is only € 2.4 billion. True, that's for only 2,500 km of roads, but even provincial road spending is not much more than € 1 billion combined (including maintenance, construction & operations).


Yes, it may be true that Norway spends more on roads than most other countries during some years, but they didn’t in earlier centuries. While almost all Europe has a full motorway network between their 4 biggest cities, it will be still a dream in Norway to have even grade separated roads between them. The Netherlands only have to focus on motorway widening, a luxurious thing compared with the upgrade to decent roads (H5 "motortrafikkveg") in Norway. Norway should need a plan to meet a road infrastructure like in the rest of the Nordic, Switzerland or Austria. Anyhow the good thing is that at least budget is available.


----------



## sotonsi

berlinwroclaw said:


> While almost all Europe has a full motorway network between their 4 biggest cities, it will be still a dream in Norway to have even grade separated roads between them.


The distances are typically further, the intermediate populations lower, the end populations also typically lower (mostly as the total populations are lower) and the terrain worse than the other countries.

And then we have to look at the reality in other countries. Defining Europe narrowly to be 'Europe west of what was the Iron Curtain' (so we have countries that have been rich for a while) minus microstates & Iceland (for the obvious reason that none have proper motorways, and most don't have a fourth biggest city) and 'motorway' as being a grade-separated road (so Sweden can have Stockholm & Uppsalla - Malmo), then it's 75%, which is hardly 'almost all'.

Sweden (link between Stockholm and Gothenburg missing), Ireland (no links between Galway, Limerick and Cork) and Finland (Oulu not on main motorway network, nor is there a Turku-Tampere link) join Norway in this. It's far from unique and also very justifiable.


----------



## Bjørne

Ingenioren said:


> No photo of the new flyover?


I have a few bad photos of the flyover from August 25


----------



## MattiG

sotonsi said:


> Sweden (link between Stockholm and Gothenburg missing), Ireland (no links between Galway, Limerick and Cork) and Finland (Oulu not on main motorway network, nor is there a Turku-Tampere link) join Norway in this.


True.

The lowest AADT figures on 4/E75 between Jyväskylä and Oulu are slightly over 3000. There is no reason to invest into a motorway just for meeting some funny criteria valid in the crowded Central Europe.

The congested leg Jyväskylä-Äänekoski 35 km will be upgraded to 2+2 gradually. The next leg, about 100 km, is a partial 2+1 road, and the remaining 200- km are 1+1 road. No major bottlenecks north of Äänekoski, and the average speed made good usually is 95+ km/h, except during the winter months.


----------



## Mathias Olsen

Can be stormy weather this time of the year. Atlanterhavsvegen Rv 64 Molde-Kristiansund is in the Top 10 of Most Dangerous Roads on Earth: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QytJyWmxkjo. 




























This road is also ranked first on The Guardian's list of the world's best road trips: 
https://www.theguardian.com/travel/2006/apr/01/fivebest.canada.australia


----------



## italystf

^^ How much % is that brige step? I guess it's less than what appears in most photos, due to perspective.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

It's fairly steep, but greatly exaggerated on zoom photos. Just like that bridge in Japan that looks like a launch pad with a telephoto lens, but is just a 6% grade.


----------



## berlinwroclaw

sotonsi said:


> Sweden (link between Stockholm and Gothenburg missing), Ireland (no links between Galway, Limerick and Cork) and Finland (Oulu not on main motorway network, nor is there a Turku-Tampere link) join Norway in this. It's far from unique and also very justifiable.


Motorways between all top 4 cities are a guarantee to be in line with other European countries about the speed in road mobility. However it is definitively not the only facilitator. It is for Norway also possible with wide 1x2 roads. A study in 2016 with with GPS systems of TomTom and Google by comparing average rate on Euro-sections for a total of 17 countries http://www.aftenposten.no/norge/Nors...pa-54735b.html:

Portugal 117.9 km / h
Germany 114.2 km / h
Croatia: 112.3 km / h
France: 112.3 km / h
Spain 111.7 km / h
Italy 105.6 km / h
Austria: 102.8 km / h
Denmark: 102.4 km / h
UK: 101.9 km / h
Sweden: 99.8 km / h
Hungary: 99 km / h
Poland: 97.9 km / h
Switzerland: 93.9 km / h
Finland: 89.4 km / h
Ireland: 88,0 km / h
*Norway: 70.3 km / h*
Albania: 56.5 km / h

Norway is again on the bottom, not because there are no motorways or expressways between the top 4 cities, but because the roads are too narrow or have too many curves to reach a speed of only 80 km/h, such as (just as an example) here on primary main EW road E134 near Notodden. 










It will be a quick win for Norway, when they upgrade the road between top 4 cities to at least a decent 1x2 road of 7 m with. Yes, that will cost some budget, because many rocks have to be cut, but don’t have to be an economic to conclude that it will be a big social benefit for the whole country. Unfortunately such a plan doesn’t exist. In the preview of the National Transport Plan, the road widening of E134 Notodden has been postponed till after 2029.


----------



## sotonsi

berlinwroclaw said:


> Norway is again on the bottom, not because there are no motorways or expressways between the top 4 cities, but because the roads are too narrow or have too many curves to reach a speed of only 80 km/h, such as (just as an example) here on primary main EW road E134 near Notodden.


Perhaps because, despite the efforts of the Norwegian government to build long tunnels to bypass the worst bits of main roads (at great cost, and earning them great respect for the feats and a "you have too much money" type comment when the traffic volumes are shown), the fact remains that Norway is a mountainous country with low population density that is all clustered on the edge.

The distances involved make cross-country journeys better by plane even if there were decent roads (or railways). It's rugged coastline makes even along-coast routes hard to build, with slow ferries able to cut off such large distances over roads that they are worth taking. And the lack of population in the middle means low traffic volumes on roads making it not necessary to widen short narrow bits, or spend lots of money making a couple of minutes' time saving for a few hundred people each day (it either has to be cheap, or cut a lot of time off).


> It will be a quick win for Norway


Developing the engineering to build the Stavanger-Bergen link - floating tunnels (as the fjords are too deep) that will be the longest road tunnels in the world - that's not quick. 

To call linking those top-4 cities with 7m 1x2 a quick win is laughable - it's an impressive feat. And be glad that Norway isn't seeking the 'quick win' approach on such a link, but will build 2x2.


----------



## berlinwroclaw

sotonsi said:


> Norway is a mountainous country with low population density that is all clustered on the edge.


Is Norway the only country with mountains and rocky ground? The same or even more challenging is for Switzerland and Austria, still they managed to have a much better road mobility than Norway.



sotonsi said:


> The distances involved make cross-country journeys better by plane even if there were decent roads (or railways).


Yes, a decent 1x2 road is still not a competion to air traffic. But when there are motorways, case studies in all countries show that airtraffic is a loser for distances below 500 km. Check out that airtraffic Kristiansand-Olso is relative minimal compared with Bergen-Oslo or Trondheim-Oslo, because a motorway Kristiansand-Olso is available:

Bergen - 64% domestic passengers
Kristiansand - 24% domestic passengers

It is likely that airtraffic will be reduced more and more because of rising oil prices and government limitations because of the fact that airtraffic is not sustainable, while the number of sustainable electric and hydrogen cars is rising fast.



sotonsi said:


> To call linking those top-4 cities with 7m 1x2 a quick win is laughable - it's an impressive feat. And be glad that Norway isn't seeking the 'quick win' approach on such a link, but will build 2x2.


It is my hope 2x2 motorways will be built soon between the top 4 cities, but unfortunately I haven’t found budget reservations for realisation till 2029. Is it possible that you can show me such plans? I cannot even find budget reservations to upgrade roads between top 4 cities with a minimum width of 7 m. Can you show me such upgrade plans?


----------



## italystf

berlinwroclaw said:


> Is Norway the only country with mountains and rocky ground? The same or even more challenging is for Switzerland and Austria, still they managed to have a much better road mobility than Norway.


We've said it many times. Switzerland and Austria are more densely popoulated than Norway and have a lot of international through traffic that Norway obviously don't have. Moreover, most of their motorways run across populated valleys and there is no the fjords problem. Nevertheless, those two countries still lack some important motorway links in their most mountanious areas, like the second bore of Gothard tunnel, A13 Bellinzona-Chur, S16 and Arlberg tunnel in Austria, an A-CH motorway, A5 and S10 to Czechia, Karavanken tunnel to Slovenia, a motorway across Fernpass,...


----------



## sotonsi

berlinwroclaw said:


> Is Norway the only country with mountains and rocky ground? The same or even more challenging is for Switzerland and Austria, still they managed to have a much better road mobility than Norway.


Switzerland has mountains, sure, but also has bits in between where the people mostly live, and the motorways mostly run. It also has over 1.5 times the population in a smaller space (even if you chop off Norway north of Trondheim) and much more evenly distributed. Add in that, the far side of the mountains for Oslo is a handful of fairly small coastal cities (all in different directions), whereas for Switzerland it's millions of people: the demand for such roads is higher.


> But when there are motorways, case studies in all countries show that airtraffic is a loser for distances below 500 km.


It's time that's the factor, rather than distance - that 500km assumes a higher average speed than found in Norway on motorways - a journey time of ~4.5 hours is 110km/h average and sounds about right for the threshold, given rail's similar figure for when the plane wins (the share vs air begins to drop at rail taking more than 3 hours and becomes very poor above 4.5h).

Kristiansand is 320km from Oslo and takes 4 hours according to Google, so 80km/h average. Bergen is well over 5 hours from Oslo at that speed, even assuming a shortening of the route. There's also a lot more planes running to Bergen, making it much more convenient than Kristiansand, which sees only a couple of planes from Oslo each day.


> I cannot even find budget reservations to upgrade roads between top 4 cities with a minimum width of 7 m. Can you show me such upgrade plans?


No. Because rather than some arbitrary goal, they are seeking to put roads where needed at the capacity needed.

You can have hoop jumping for hoop jumping's sake, or you can have money spent where it's most needed.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

A breakthrough of the Eiganes Tunnel in Stavanger (part of the Ryfast project) has been achieved today. The Eiganes Tunnel is a 3.7 km long twin-tube tunnel. There will be an underground interchange to the Hundvåg Tunnel.


----------



## Mathias Olsen

italystf said:


> Switzerland and Austria are more densely popoulated than Norway and have a lot of international through traffic that Norway obviously don't have.


That doesn’t say that Norway doesn’t need better infrastructure. Within the government, here and on all media in Norway it has been discussed by e.g. Bård Hoksrud (Secretary Ministry of Transport) that Norway has the slowest speed on the road between the biggest cities in Europe and can learn about motorway construction from Albania.










Also NPRA did not deny that there is a need for more infrastructure investments. The good thing is that the government responds by raising the road infrastructure budget with the intention to invest in new and better roads.


----------



## sotonsi

Mathias Olsen said:


> That doesn’t say that Norway doesn’t need better infrastructure.


Absolutely. But it doesn't mean that Norway should be shamed by its infrastructure, as berlinwroclaw suggest. Nor does it mean that Norway should focus on reaching some arbitrary goal like getting average speeds on empty cross-country roads up, nor on linking the largest cities with a certain standard of road, rather than spending the money where it would be most usefully spent (which often enough is on stuff that helps achieve those goals).


----------



## berlinwroclaw

sotonsi said:


> But it doesn't mean that Norway should be shamed by its infrastructure


Sorry that you concluded that way, I only wanted to discuss the speed of road mobility. Norway has worldclass infrastructure e.g. with traffic management, new Rogfast motorway tunnels, many other tunnels and bridges. It has also the best road safety in the world. I only hope that some limitations on the roads to big cities will be improved. I think it will help to stimulate tourism and will help to make daily life cheaper on the westcoast.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Norway does have the lowest fatality rate of Europe, however it also has the highest rate of fatal accidents involving semi trucks. This is due to the poor design of roads for long-distance trucking and the very low share of vehicle kilometers being driven on divided highways (only 8%, in most countries it's 40-60%).


----------



## berlinwroclaw

italystf said:


> Switzerland and Austria are more densely popoulated than Norway and have a lot of international through traffic that Norway obviously don't have. Moreover, most of their motorways run across populated valleys and there is no the fjords problem.


Most Norwegians live in Southern Norway; an all country density is not representative. Biggest cities are comparable with narrow band with.
Population density Austria. 

1.	Wien = 1.8 million, 2. Graz = 0.266 m, 3. Linz = 0.184 m, 4. Salzburg = 0.144 m










Population density Southern Norway

1.	Oslo = 1.7 million, 2. Bergen = 0.278 m, 3. Trondheim = 0.179 m, Stavanger = 0.133 m











Therefore transport specialists, including Norwegian politicians, still compare Norway with Switzerland and Austria. Construction of A1 Wien-Salzburg (after the war) started in 1954 and A2 Wien-Graz started in 1959. Topography was not easier than on E6 / Rv 3 Oslo – Trondheim. Austria has 2 mountain motorways, while Norway hasn’t a single one. However, for Norway the number one country to compare is Sweden. Minister of Transport, said:



> *Ketil Solvik-Olsen, 28-07-2016*
> In Sweden they succeed in building motorways for a far lower cost. I do not think Norwegian motorists who have driven on Swedish motorways, experience that Swedish roads are no good. Some of the price difference is due to topography and geography - that we must live with. “Nye Veier” also believes that there are great savings to be made in how we organize and execute road projects.
> http://www.solvikolsen.com/2016/07/bedre-veier-ikke-darligere/


“Nye Veier” is a road construction organisation to construct motorways faster, better and cheaper. First projects are missing links E18 Drammen-Kristiansand and E39 Kristiansand-Stavanger.
It is a dramatic political change for road constructions in Norway to transfer budget for local projects to national projects. The hard issue is not that there is not enough money, but the fact that most of the budget goes to countless local projects for thin populated areas with no national impact. This has been changed by the Minister of Transport:



> *Ketil Solvik-Olsen, 28-07-2016*
> There are many things that are not strictly necessary, but that is "nice to have" while others take the bill. Therefore, we must set limits which want local politicians and interest groups to get repaid.
> http://www.solvikolsen.com/2016/07/bedre-veier-ikke-darligere/


Finally there is governance to build four-lane motorways where the previous government believed the two-lane roads were enough  We have to see how this kind of promises will come true. The test case will be the National Transport Plan in summer 2017. Needed is a decision to put at least the construction of the motorway Bergen-Oslo in the “Nye Veier” organisation. A big "nice to have" will be Trondheim-Oslo.


----------



## Mathias Olsen

berlinwroclaw said:


> Finally there is governance to build four-lane motorways where the previous government believed the two-lane roads were enough  We have to see how this kind of promises will come true. The test case will be the National Transport Plan in summer 2017. Needed is a decision to put at least the construction of the motorway Bergen-Oslo in the “Nye Veier” organisation. A big "nice to have" will be Trondheim-Oslo.


Some generalising statements about motorways from the Minister of Transport are unfortunately not a guarantee that the construction of the East-West motorway will start soon. And about Ketil Solvik-Olsen: it would create more trust, when he is able to apply his own rules for infrastructure investments to his own job about what is “must” and “nice to have”. Now he is fighting “at all price” for Hordfast with a 110 km/h motorway to Bergen over a floating bridge of 43 billion. That is what I call "nice to have" while others take the bill. Other members of the government have objections to such a huge investment. Better look at an integrated network, such as the inner E39 Bergen-Haugesund that can be combined with the Bergen Arm. This will also help to the growing commuter traffic east of Bergen. That is more strictly necessary for now. I won’t be surprised when finally the expressway network in the West will look like the proposal NPRA already did in 2006:










More and more people are aware that such a network is more interesting for all Rogaland and Hordaland than putting much budget on a 43 billion road and doing nothing on the rest for a long time.


----------



## devo

Two things are important regarding future development of the road network: 
1. That the politicians are less "hands on" with regard to implementing lots of break of standard for short-term financial benefits. In other words: Let the people who are educated do the work in planning the infrastructure. No other segment (such as water, sewage and so on) faces this kind of involvement from politicians.
2. That there exists an agreement on what the national high-capacity road network should look like, and that, for instance, E 6 and E 134 are planned as 110 km/h motorway and then built as efficient and cost-effective as possible. If this means building one tube and later twinning it (which is happening with E 6 Gudbrandsdalen) then that is what needs to be done. But having political battles every year on where every little bend should be is extremely ineffective.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

The 6.2 km segment of E18 motorway from Retvet to Knapstad (east of Oslo) will open to traffic on 25 November.

http://www.vegvesen.no/vegprosjekte...velkommen-til-åpningen-av-e18-knapstad-retvet


----------



## Mathias Olsen

devo said:


> That there exists an agreement on what the national high-capacity road network should look like, and that, for instance, E 6 and E 134 are planned as 110 km/h motorway and then built as efficient and cost-effective as possible. If this means building one tube and later twinning it (which is happening with E 6 Gudbrandsdalen) then that is what needs to be done. But having political battles every year on where every little bend should be is extremely ineffective.


Yes, indeed we are looking for agreement on what the national high-capacity road network should look like. When possible, it would be nice to have already a preview before the approval of the National Transport Plan and the Motorway Plan.
Motorways E6 Oslo-Trondheim and E134 Oslo-Bergen can be ready in 10 years from now. 
http://www.tu.no/artikler/firefelts-motorvei-er-lonnsomt/239410

Best would be to construct the motorways immediately, but it won’t be easy to get parliament approval for a 60 billion E134 Bergen-Oslo or a 20 billion missing links Trondheim-Oslo.
Present policy is to construct an expressway first on E134 Bergen-Oslo and E6 Trondheim-Oslo and when traffic volume is growing (and it will grow for sure) they upgrade to motorway. But this approach isn’t only a waste of money, when you want to upgrader later. The 2+1 roads with separated carriageways are sometimes annoying. Today an accident on E6 in Levanger when a truck overturned.










The median makes it difficult for large vehicles to get turned:


----------



## Ryme Intrinseca

2+1 with a central barrier is a ridiculous standard for precisely that reason. The additional cost for 2+2 will be small relative to the benefits.


----------



## Rob73

ChrisZwolle said:


> Norway does have the lowest fatality rate of Europe, however it also has the highest rate of fatal accidents involving semi trucks. This is due to the poor design of roads for long-distance trucking and the very low share of vehicle kilometers being driven on divided highways (only 8%, in most countries it's 40-60%).


You'll also find that most of those trucks involved in accidents are foreign registered, usually from Eastern Europe, traveling over Norwegian mountain passes in winter on summer tires and mostly with single axel tractor units. Norwegian operators almost as always use dual axel tractors and winter tires are of course mandatory.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Do you get more traction with dual rear axles? You'd think more weight on a single axle means more traction, but I've noticed most Scandinavian trucks indeed have tandem rear axles. 

Another problem with foreign truckers is that they're not used to winter driving on long, winding two-lane roads. For example in the Alps most truckers stay on the motorway network, whereas such a motorway network is absent in much of Norway. Foreign truckers would very rarely drive across Alpine passes, while that is unavoidable in Norway to reach cities on the coast. Many southern European truckers don't even know how to chain up.

Statens Vegvesen has reported that after increased enforcement over the past few years, foreign truckers are now generally better equipped than before, however trucks cause a lot of trouble on the roads still, especially due to the lack of alternate routes in many locations.

A _Highway Thru Hell_ series based in Norway could be rather interesting


----------



## coolstuff

devo said:


> Two things are important regarding future development of the road network:
> 1. That the politicians are less "hands on" with regard to implementing lots of break of standard for short-term financial benefits. In other words: Let the people who are educated do the work in planning the infrastructure. No other segment (such as water, sewage and so on) faces this kind of involvement from politicians.
> 2. That there exists an agreement on what the national high-capacity road network should look like, and that, for instance, E 6 and E 134 are planned as 110 km/h motorway and then built as efficient and cost-effective as possible. If this means building one tube and later twinning it (which is happening with E 6 Gudbrandsdalen) then that is what needs to be done. But having political battles every year on where every little bend should be is extremely ineffective.


There is a long tradition in Parliament that there is a combination of state funds from the state budget, county agents and municipal funds, in addition to toll funding. According to the Ministry of Finance it is a good system. They are afraid another funding will mean that parliament eventually lose track of developments in the Norwegian economy. But it may be a better idea to organise infrastructure as a separate investment project where part or all of the loan amount is collected from individuals, companies, life insurance companies, investors and pension funds.

Problem with the new governmental road construction organisation Nye Veier is that it didn’t select most profitable road projects, such as E134 Notodden-Drammen or Rv 23. The E39 Kristiansand-Sandnes has a predicted AADT of 6000-8000 far below the E134 east of Notodden of 8000-13500. People who do not win on the new E39 are living in central eastern Norway, but they will win in case of the E134 and Rv 23.
In past years Germany borrowed Norwegian oil money almost for free to build roads, while Norwegian road projects had to take out loans to three times higher rate. Germany has borrowed from the oil fund to 1.8 percent interest to build roads. On the other side, the E6 motorway upgrade from Gardermoen to Kolomoen to 7.1 billion was partly financed with a loan at 6.5 percent interest from European countries. A ridiculous situation. 

Norway should use more of its oil wealth to invest in profitable road projects. There is a big need for new national infrastructure in Norway, perhaps more than in Germany. Norway will have at the end of 2016 only 626 km four lane motorways. This should have been 1.200 km to be in line with European standards. http://www.aftenposten.no/norge/politikk/Her-er-de-storste-hullene-i-norske-veier-606167b.html The NPRA has no authority to manage this. This is a purely political issue.


----------



## italystf

Why E134 Oslo-Bergen?
E134 only goes to Haugesund, unless they also make E39 Bergen-Stavanger ferry-free with very long bridges and/or tunnels, that seems a very ambitious goal.


----------



## MattiG

ChrisZwolle said:


> Do you get more traction with dual rear axles? You'd think more weight on a single axle means more traction, but I've noticed most Scandinavian trucks indeed have tandem rear axles.


You cannot put unlimited load on a single axle. For example, the maximum axle load is 11.5 tons in Finland. In practice, if you want to go beyond the magic EU default of max 40 tons total weight, you need a lot of axles. The maximum load is 76 tons in Finland. That requires nine axles in 1+3+2+3 or 2+3+1+3 configuration, and most axles of the trailer must have twin tires. If you want to go 68 tons or above, the 4-wheel drive is mandatory.


----------



## berlinwroclaw

Rob73 said:


> You'll also find that most of those trucks involved in accidents are foreign registered, usually from Eastern Europe, traveling over Norwegian mountain passes in winter on summer tires and mostly with single axel tractor units. Norwegian operators almost as always use dual axel tractors and winter tires are of course mandatory.


It is understandable that you are looking at a Norwegian perspective. But have you ever been on major mountain passes in winter in Czechia, Poland, Slovenia or Croatia? You will notice most of the major mountain passes are motorways and in other cases you will find decent 2 lane roads where trucks don't have problems to pass each other. Please try to understand the perspective of a foreigner who is used to drive on a motorway or wide 2 lane road, where it is no problem to have summer tires and single ax tractor units in winter. In Norway in 2017 ca. 14 percent of the the 1550 km state roads will remain too narrow to satisfy the demands of two-lane road with yellow centerline. Norwegian road are also steeper and have more curves. That means that trucks will have problems to pass. And yes, many of those too narrow roads are mountain roads.


----------



## berlinwroclaw

italystf said:


> Why E134 Oslo-Bergen?
> E134 only goes to Haugesund, unless they also make E39 Bergen-Stavanger ferry-free with very long bridges and/or tunnels, that seems a very ambitious goal.


A new road from Bergen via Odda to Skare is projected. It is called the "Bergen Arm" to the E134. When the National Transport Plan has been approved in summer 2017, there will be more certainty about such a road. There is massive support from business companies and the counties on the road and economic analysis predicts a high positive social impact for the country. This topic has been discussed in detail since June 2016 here on SSC Norway. For a short introduction, refer to http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=133347383&postcount=3720.


----------



## suburbicide

ChrisZwolle said:


> Do you get more traction with dual rear axles? You'd think more weight on a single axle means more traction, but I've noticed most Scandinavian trucks indeed have tandem rear axles


Two axles are an advantage in winter because the rear axle an be lifted to shift more weight to the axle with traction, if needed.


----------



## OAQP

Rob73 said:


> You'll also find that most of those trucks involved in accidents are foreign registered, usually from Eastern Europe, traveling over Norwegian mountain passes in winter on summer tires and mostly with single axel tractor units. Norwegian operators almost as always use dual axel tractors and winter tires are of course mandatory.


I disagree with your sweeping statement. There is no evidence to suggest that "most of those trucks involved in accidents are foreign registered, usually from Eastern Europe".


----------



## Stafangr

coolstuff said:


> Norway should use more of its oil wealth to invest in profitable road projects.


No, we shouldn't. Should we spend more on infrastructure? Yeah, sure, but don't use the 'oil fund'. If we were to do that, Norway would suffer from the so called Dutch disease, making it a lot more difficult for the economy to transition away from its dependency on the oil industry.


----------



## MattiG

berlinwroclaw said:


> It is understandable that you are looking at a Norwegian perspective. But have you ever been on major mountain passes in winter in Czechia, Poland, Slovenia or Croatia?


What in the heck do the conditions Czechia, Poland, Slovenia or Croatia have to do with *the fact* that truck companies from eastern Europe tend to send incompetent drivers with lousy vehicles to the North in the winter? 

The Port of Helsinki and the Finnish/Russian border stations are more vehicle inspection stations than customs offices. Quite a big fraction of the trucks are denied the entry. For that reason, many of the customs officers have a professional background of working as a car mechanic.


----------



## Mathias Olsen

italystf said:


> Why E134 Oslo-Bergen?


A new motorway Bergen-Oslo is an original proposal of the best social economist of Norway. Feasibility study shows that E134 Bergen-Oslo will have a positive benefit to the country of NOK 26 billion. The Bergen Arm has a positive social impact of 14 billion. The Bergen Arm is supported by NPRA, road consultancy companies and almost all companies in the West and of all counties to Oslo. The government has selected the E134 via Haukeli in 2015 as the primary main road between East and West. Support under the population is growing every month as can be seen by the interest in media for it.










The motorway Bergen-Oslo is the direct connection between the West (1 million inhabitants) with the East (2 million inhabitants) over a distance of 380 km. In between, the road is near important industrial and tourist centers Røldal, Hovden, Rauland, Notodden, Kongsberg and Hokksund with a population of 0.1 million inhabitants. With indirect connections such as Bergen-Kristiansand (Rv 9) and Bergen-Porsgrunn/Skien/Larvik (Rv 35), the road has a very strong national impact. 




italystf said:


> E134 only goes to Haugesund, unless they also make E39 Bergen-Stavanger ferry-free with very long bridges and/or tunnels


A new direct road is planned from the end of the Haukeli tunnels to Bergen via Odda. Ferry-free E39 only serves west coast cities. It is expected that Rv 52 will be selected by the government as secondary main road for traffic north of Bergen. After approval of the Rv 52 in mid-2017, it is expected the government will approve construction of the Bergen Arm soon after it.










It is possible that the label “E134” will become on the new road to Bergen because this city is more than 6 times bigger than Haugesund. The road to Haugesund will get its state road number, Rv 11. As usual in snowy and rocky Norway, there will be long bridges and tunnels in the road.



italystf said:


> that seems a very ambitious goal.


What do you call ambitious? High speed railway Bergen-Oslo will cost 250 billion. Ferry-free E39 Kristiansand-Trondheim will cost 320 billion. Next phase of it, Haugesund-Bergen will cost 43 billion and many politicians wants to postpone or cancel, because of the high costs. 










After the approval of the Bergen Arm, a study about the most appropriate stretch will be launched. The cheapest solution is the northern alternative via Norheimsund with an upgrade of the existing road. Other alternatives via Tysse and Eikelandsosen are more expensive, but more desired. They are faster and have better social impact. 

When the Bergen Arm will be ready, it will attract most traffic from all other roads and even from airlines on Bergen-Oslo.


----------



## italystf

Mathias Olsen said:


> What do you call ambitious? High speed railway Bergen-Oslo will cost 250 billion. Ferry-free E39 Kristiansand-Trondheim will cost 320 billion. Next phase of it, Haugesund-Bergen will cost 43 billion and many politicians wants to postpone or cancel, because of the high costs.


I've read that some Norweigian fjords are too deep and wide to be crossed with any conventional bridge or tunnel (bridges longer than 2km requires intermediate pillars, that can't be built in very deep water, and tunnels under water more than 300m deep have never been built either).
So, totally new technologies have to been developed (such as floating undersea tunnels, a concept that has been imagined by engineers since a century ago, but it was never built so far).
I don't know if it's the case of Stavanger-Bergen, though, but probably of other cross-fjord projects (maybe Tysfjord in the north, if I remember well).
The same engineering problem affects any fixed link that would be built across the Messina strait in Italy, further complicated by strong tides and high seismical activity.


----------



## Mathias Olsen

italystf said:


> I've read that some Norweigian fjords are too deep and wide to be crossed with any conventional bridge or tunnel (bridges longer than 2km requires intermediate pillars, that can't be built in very deep water, and tunnels under water more than 300m deep have never been built either).
> So, totally new technologies have to been developed (such as floating undersea tunnels, a concept that has been imagined by engineers since a century ago, but it was never built so far).
> I don't know if it's the case of Stavanger-Bergen, though, but probably of other cross-fjord projects (maybe Tysfjord in the north, if I remember well).


You mean the E39 motorway bridge over Bjørnafjord of the Hordfast project. It is part of a planned motorway Haugesund-Bergen. Latest proposal is to use a floating bridge with new technology never used because the depth of the fjord is more than 500 m. At this moment the NPRA has chosen for 3 different floating bridge designs. One of them is a bridge with similar structures as the Nordhordland bridge. See photos below:




























The bridge is rigidly clamped in both ends. There is a floating bridge concept for most of the bridge. Big ships are able to pass till an altitude of 45 m. Smaller vessels can pass under the rest of the bridge. Parliament has problems with the high costs of a 43 billion 2x2 motorway bridge. It is possible the design will be downgraded to a 1x2 bridge or that a new study will be started for another solution of the E39 motorway Haugesund-Bergen. http://www.midtsiden.no/e39-planen-er-klar



italystf said:


> The same engineering problem affects any fixed link that would be built across the Messina strait in Italy, further complicated by strong tides and high seismical activity.


Yes, it may be an idea to use the same concept as the Nordhordland bridge or this proposal for a Bjørnafjord for a bridge in Italy across Messina. You only need to stabilise the two pylons good enough, the rest is a floating bridge that need to resist high sea waves after earthquake.


----------



## berlinwroclaw

MattiG said:


> What in the heck do the conditions Czechia, Poland, Slovenia or Croatia have to do with *the fact* that truck companies from eastern Europe tend to send incompetent drivers with lousy vehicles to the North in the winter?


Did you read my post? 



berlinwroclaw said:


> You will notice most of the major mountain passes are motorways and in other cases you will find decent 2 lane roads where trucks don't have problems to pass each other. *Please try to understand the perspective of a foreigner* who is used to drive on a motorway or wide 2 lane road, where it is no problem to have summer tires and single ax tractor units in winter.





MattiG said:


> The Port of Helsinki and the Finnish/Russian border stations are more vehicle inspection stations than customs offices. Quite a big fraction of the trucks are denied the entry. For that reason, many of the customs officers have a professional background of working as a car mechanic.


Yes, the Finnish border police is doing a good job at the EU border. This is a contrast with border Norway/Sweden, where Norway is an associate member of the EU.


----------



## Stafangr

italystf said:


> I've read that some Norweigian fjords are too deep and wide to be crossed with any conventional bridge or tunnel (bridges longer than 2km requires intermediate pillars, that can't be built in very deep water, and tunnels under water more than 300m deep have never been built either).
> So, totally new technologies have to been developed (such as floating undersea tunnels, a concept that has been imagined by engineers since a century ago, but it was never built so far).


Sognefjorden is the largest challenge on E39 (and the most wasteful from an economics point of view).


----------



## MattiG

berlinwroclaw said:


> Did you read my post?


Yes, I did. And I do not understand it all. Norwegians shalt not criticize foreign drivers entering Norway with lousy tracks because there are difficult places somewhere else in the world, too? This was my eldest daughter's favorite argumentation logic pattern when she was four.


----------



## MattiG

Stafangr said:


> Sognefjorden is the largest challenge on E39 (and the most wasteful from an economics point of view).


Norway should sell Sognefjorden to Poland. That would turn the crossing to an intra-EU post-ironcurtain development project, and huge heaps of money would be available.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

The E39 Sognefjord crossing is far from sizable towns or cities, so it lacks the commuter traffic to make a very expensive investment viable. 

Do you think a Sognefjord crossing on riksvei 5 makes more sense than E39?


----------



## MattiG

ChrisZwolle said:


> The E39 Sognefjord crossing is far from sizable towns or cities, so it lacks the commuter traffic to make a very expensive investment viable.
> 
> Do you think a Sognefjord crossing on riksvei 5 makes more sense than E39?


I do not believe that would meet the Norwegian vision to create a coastal highway. The Rv5 crossing at Fodnes-Mannhiller is located 100 kilometers inlands. 

The crossing point at Rv5 is challenging, too: The sea is 2.5 kilometers wide, and 800+ meters deep.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Well, I do not see that crossing as an alternative to an E39 crossing, but Vegvesen has said that they want to make Riksvei 5 a primary route to the northwestern coastal cities.


----------



## MattiG

ChrisZwolle said:


> Well, I do not see that crossing as an alternative to an E39 crossing, but Vegvesen has said that they want to make Riksvei 5 a primary route to the northwestern coastal cities.


Rv5 is an east-west route while E39 is south-north one. They are not mutually exclusive. Rv5 is the access route from inland areas to the coast, and the E39 is the route between the coastal cities.


----------



## berlinwroclaw

MattiG said:


> Yes, I did. And I do not understand it all. Norwegians shalt not criticize foreign drivers entering Norway with lousy tracks because there are difficult places somewhere else in the world, too? This was my eldest daughter's favorite argumentation logic pattern when she was four.


The thing has to do with empathy. It is the feeling that you understand and share another person's experiences and emotions. In other words: the ability to share someone else's feelings. For a foreigner who for the first time enters the roads outside the expressways around Norway, he experiences s**t. No matter how good you studied road forums like this, inspecting satellite maps and other maps, you come from surprise to surprise. 

On the other side foreigners don't understand the situation of the drivers in Norway an isolated country with many mountains, rocks and thin populated areas. The mass transport developed more and more via air traffic than via road traffic. Drivers learned the skills to be careful on driving steep, narrow and curvy roads, unlike in other countries where most traffic goes over motorways and wide 2 lane roads. 

It is a good practice that Norwegians shalt not criticize foreign drivers entering Norway. But with some empathy I can understand them when they criticize


----------



## berlinwroclaw

Stafangr said:


> Sognefjorden is the largest challenge on E39 (and the most wasteful from an economics point of view).


Yes, it is the most wasteful from an economics point of view. In the words of Ketil Solvik-Olsen: "things that are not strictly necessary, but that is "nice to have" while others take the bill. Therefore, we must set limits which want local politicians and interest groups to get repaid" or in business language: "not a profitable road project". I think the ferry-free E39 doesn't make much chance north of Bergen till 2040.

Profitable road constructions are IMO upgrade North-South road E6 Oslo-Steinkjer; upgrade East-West road E134 Drammen-Bergen/Haugesund and upgrade all E-roads and all profitable Riksvei to satisfy the demands of two-lane road with yellow centerline.


----------



## Mathias Olsen

*Construction company chosen for Western Kongsberg E134 expressway bypass*

Nine companies were interested in the construction of E134 expressway Trollerud Moen-Saggrenda, which is the last segment on the new 13 km E134 Kongsberg bypass. The new section has a length of 4.7 km with two 2 tunnels and the Saggrenda bridge over the Kobberbergselva river of 312 m, a four lane bridge. 










Here are the amounts in NOK: 

1. AF Metro Stav, Berthelsen and Garpestad AS and HAG Construction AS - 643 730 726.00
2. ALDES - 665 722 842.83
3. Implenia Norway AS - 668 747 018.00
4. Hæhre Entreprenør AS - 674 883 246.79
5. Veidekke Entreprenør AS - 682 654 241.28
6. Strabag - 688 556 236.65
7. Kruse Smith AS - 696 629 200.40
8. AF Gruppen AS - 738 828 352.52
9. OHL - 1,089,897 836.34

The Czech-Norwegian cooperation AF Metro Stav, Berthelsen and Garpestad AS and HAG Construction was the lowest. Contract will be signed in November 2016. The new E134 Kongsberg bypass will be ready in Autumn 2019.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

*Fv. 258 Gamle Strynefjellsvegen*

The old road across Strynefjell. It was the main road between east and west from Sogn og Fjordane until a new tunnel route of riksvei 15 opened to traffic in 1977.


Gamle Strynefjellsvegen-1 by European Roads, on Flickr


Gamle Strynefjellsvegen-2 by European Roads, on Flickr


Gamle Strynefjellsvegen-3 by European Roads, on Flickr


Gamle Strynefjellsvegen-4 by European Roads, on Flickr


Gamle Strynefjellsvegen-5 by European Roads, on Flickr


Gamle Strynefjellsvegen-6 by European Roads, on Flickr


Gamle Strynefjellsvegen-7 by European Roads, on Flickr


----------



## Rob73

ChrisZwolle said:


> Do you get more traction with dual rear axles? You'd think more weight on a single axle means more traction, but I've noticed most Scandinavian trucks indeed have tandem rear axles.
> 
> A _Highway Thru Hell_ series based in Norway could be rather interesting


Absolutely dual rear axels give significantly more traction and braking, one thing I'm surprised that hasn't come to Norwegian trucking is dual steering, in some countries with hills and tight roads, like NZ a lot of tractor units are dual steer with tandem axels, they have much improved turning. 

There is a highway thru hell like series set in Norway, it's on discovery, just can't remember the name.


----------



## Rob73

OAQP said:


> I disagree with your sweeping statement. There is no evidence to suggest that "most of those trucks involved in accidents are foreign registered, usually from Eastern Europe".


It's not a sweeping statement a friend of mine is a recovery driver for Viking, he's always pulling foreign trucks out of trouble in winter, many don't have winter tires or even chains, it's mostly truckers from the Baltic States and Eastern Europe who cause the problems. A friend of a friend manages a Dekkman, throughout winter they receive a steady stream of Baltic and Eastern European trucks which the police have removed from the road until the tires haves been changed to winter tires, a new set on a truck runs to well over 100k, it's good business.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

Rob73 said:


> There is a highway thru hell like series set in Norway, it's on discovery, just can't remember the name.


Ice road rescue, National Geographic Channel.


----------



## Suburbanist

These series get different names in different countries, even those of same language.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

I need get into that, I never watch regular TV programming. _Ice Road Rescue_ sounds interesting.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

*E6 Gudbrandsdalen*

The toll rates for the new E6 through Gudbrandsdalen are rather steep. 109 NOK / € 12.15 for 34 km of express road = € 0.35 per kilometer, that's like 3.5 times more expensive than toll roads in France.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

Statens vegvesen released some numbers on the costs of road construction two years ago that I was not aware of http://www.tu.no/artikler/sa-mye-koster-det-egentlig-a-bygge-vei-i-norge/231083. (Pardon me for the Norwegian) 

2-felts veg: 8,5 m vegbredde: 70 000 – 120 000 kr per meter
2-felts veg: 10,0 m vegbredde: 80 000 – 140 000 kr per meter (forsterket midtoppmerking)
2/3-felts veg m/midtrekkverk: 110 000 – 150 000 kr per meter
4-felts veg, kryss i plan: 120 000 – 170 000 kr per meter (16 m vegbredde)
4-felts veg, planskilte kryss: 140 000 – 230 000 kr per meter (19-22 m vegbredde)
The numbers confirm what I always have argued. The added cost for construction a full motorway (last item) instead of a 2/3-laner is not astronomical, especially in areas where construction cost is low (Østerdalen springs to mind). With the much higher safety and efficiency of motorways I really do not understand why 2/3 lane expressways still are planned and constructed, to be later expanded at much higher cost to a motorway. Overall, we can hope that the costs for road building in Norway will decrease ahead with the current focus on more long term planning and larger projects.


----------



## Kanadzie

Stafangr said:


> No, we shouldn't. Should we spend more on infrastructure? Yeah, sure, but don't use the 'oil fund'. If we were to do that, Norway would suffer from the so called Dutch disease, making it a lot more difficult for the economy to transition away from its dependency on the oil industry.


Does that make sense? It would seem logical to use the "oil money" to invest in infrastructure that would help alternative industries (since road upgrades are not really useful for oil but useful for almost anything else)


----------



## MattiG

Kanadzie said:


> Does that make sense? It would seem logical to use the "oil money" to invest in infrastructure that would help alternative industries (since road upgrades are not really useful for oil but useful for almost anything else)


Oil money will be used for buying oil after the own oil sources have exhausted?


----------



## Stafangr

Kanadzie said:


> Does that make sense? It would seem logical to use the "oil money" to invest in infrastructure that would help alternative industries (since road upgrades are not really useful for oil but useful for almost anything else)


The oil fund own assets outside of Norway. If the oil fund were to sell off (some of) those assets and bring the cash it got from those sales back to Norway, it would make the Norwegian currency (NOK) more valuable. That means all costs and salaries paid in NOK would become more expensive and make Norwegian businesses less competitive compared to their international peers. Norway has a small and export focused economy, and is currently trying to shift away from its dependency on the petroleum industry.


----------



## Shifty2k5

54°26′S 3°24′E;136124532 said:


> Statens vegvesen released some numbers on the costs of road construction two years ago that I was not aware of http://www.tu.no/artikler/sa-mye-koster-det-egentlig-a-bygge-vei-i-norge/231083. (Pardon me for the Norwegian)
> 
> 2-felts veg: 8,5 m vegbredde: 70 000 – 120 000 kr per meter
> 2-felts veg: 10,0 m vegbredde: 80 000 – 140 000 kr per meter (forsterket midtoppmerking)
> 2/3-felts veg m/midtrekkverk: 110 000 – 150 000 kr per meter
> 4-felts veg, kryss i plan: 120 000 – 170 000 kr per meter (16 m vegbredde)
> 4-felts veg, planskilte kryss: 140 000 – 230 000 kr per meter (19-22 m vegbredde)
> The numbers confirm what I always have argued. The added cost for construction a full motorway (last item) instead of a 2/3-laner is not astronomical, especially in areas where construction cost is low (Østerdalen springs to mind). With the much higher safety and efficiency of motorways I really do not understand why 2/3 lane expressways still are planned and constructed, to be later expanded at much higher cost to a motorway. Overall, we can hope that the costs for road building in Norway will decrease ahead with the current focus on more long term planning and larger projects.


I'm assuming a 2/3-felts veg is what we in Sweden call a 2+1 road. They're not as efficient as motorways, that's true, but they are just as safe if not safer due to lower speed limit.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Stafangr said:


> Norway has a small and export focused economy, and is currently trying to shift away from its dependency on the petroleum industry.


Hmm, what does Norway export besides oil and gas? Mostly fish / seafoods products? Maybe it exports knowledge, like the Netherlands exports water management knowledge?

Given the already high labor cost, it's doubtful if Norway can replace its oil & gas exports with other products of a similar value. There are limited other forms of industry, apart from some aluminium production, it seems.


----------



## devo

ChrisZwolle said:


> Hmm, what does Norway export besides oil and gas? Mostly fish / seafoods products? [...]


https://www.ssb.no/en/utenriksokono...6-10-17?fane=tabell&sort=nummer&tabell=280893


----------



## Stafangr

ChrisZwolle said:


> Hmm, what does Norway export besides oil and gas? Mostly fish / seafoods products? Maybe it exports knowledge, like the Netherlands exports water management knowledge?
> 
> Given the already high labor cost, it's doubtful if Norway can replace its oil & gas exports with other products of a similar value. There are limited other forms of industry, apart from some aluminium production, it seems.


Oil, seafood, and chemical and mineral resources are the largest exports of goods. Other important sectors are shipping, ship building, mechanical and electrical manufacturing. And of course 'knowledge exports'.

Because of the flat salary structure, labor costs aren't as high for knowledge intensive companies as you'd expect. The minimum wage in Norway is really high (yeah I know, we don't have a minimum wage implemented by law), but the salaries for highly skilled workers are sometimes lower than what you'd get in other developed countries. I think Norway will (continue to) have competitive salaries in the future, because we have our own free-floating currency and the Nordic Model where salaries are negotiated between the labor unions and employer unions.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

I've read something about significant oil reserves being discovered in the Barents Sea. The oil era of Norway may not be over yet for some time?


----------



## ChrisZwolle

*Fv. 63 Geiranger - Eidsdal*

I made a video of a scenic stretch of Fylkesvei 63 (County Road 63) from Geiranger to Eidsdal. It's interesting how quickly you'll lose the tourist crowd that is present on Ørnevegen. Apparently most tourists only drive up the hairpin turns, with fewer continuing towards Trollstigen.


----------



## Rob73

Is Shtokman the project you are thinking about? That's on hold and it's in the Russian sector, plus it's very deep.


----------



## Stafangr

ChrisZwolle said:


> I've read something about significant oil reserves being discovered in the Barents Sea. The oil era of Norway may not be over yet for some time?


This? https://www.thelocal.no/20161012/barents-sea-could-hold-billions-of-barrels-of-undiscovered-oil


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

Shifty2k5 said:


> I'm assuming a 2/3-felts veg is what we in Sweden call a 2+1 road. They're not as efficient as motorways, that's true, but they are just as safe if not safer due to lower speed limit.


Mostly they are 1+1, but with occasional passing lanes. These are significantly slower than motorways. The speed limit of these is at most 90 km/h, compared to up to 110 on Norwegian motorways, the latter is likely to increase ahead. In reality, the speed difference is larger for cars at least due to limited passing opportunities. This difference in efficiency is important when evaluating the economics of the two types of road. The lower speed limit on the 1+1 is due to inferior geometry standards and narrower carriage way. Note that some of the Norwegian 1+1 are down to 10 m wide, making it impossible for eg emergency vehicles to pass. Norwegian motorways have proven to be very safe.


----------



## Kanadzie

ChrisZwolle said:


> I've read something about significant oil reserves being discovered in the Barents Sea. The oil era of Norway may not be over yet for some time?


as a Saudi oil minister said once... like the Stone Age didn't end for lack of stone, the Oil Age probably won't either :cheers:


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Today is the first anniversary of the Tresfjord Bridge (E136) that opened on 24 October 2015.


----------



## Ingenioren

Stafangr said:


> The oil fund own assets outside of Norway. If the oil fund were to sell off (some of) those assets and bring the cash it got from those sales back to Norway, it would make the Norwegian currency (NOK) more valuable. That means all costs and salaries paid in NOK would become more expensive and make Norwegian businesses less competitive compared to their international peers. Norway has a small and export focused economy, and is currently trying to shift away from its dependency on the petroleum industry.


Quick fix, just scrap the krone


----------



## Stafangr

Ingenioren said:


> Quick fix, just scrap the krone


I'm know you're joking, but... What issue would it solve? What currency should we then use? The Euro? We're not even a member of the EU.


----------



## MattiG

ChrisZwolle said:


> Alternatives for the planned upgrade of E39 from Knarvik to the Eikefett Tunnel, which is just north of Bergen.
> 
> Is this stretch really so in need of upgrading? Traffic volumes taper off from 6,500 to 2,800 vehicles per day here, the road has two regular lanes and a lot of tunnels, it has clearly already been upgraded in the past.


By looking at the AADT figures only, one can lead to a chicken and egg situation: The AADT is low because the road in substandard and the road will remain substandard because of low AADT. It is good to observe that increasing the supply often increases the demand.

The road stretch dates back to 1980's with exception of some older legs. As Google Streetview shows, there are narrow and windy sections in place. In addition, there is a demand to improve the pedestrian and cycle routes east of Knarvik.

It is hard to believe the existing road will meet the expectations to have a really useful coastal transport corridor.


----------



## Mathias Olsen

Gsus said:


> What schedule? Only a lesser part of this road is prioritized for (a possible) construction start by 2020, and that depends on how the government (and future government) will prioritize money. There`s no way there`s a motorway all the way from Kristiansand to Stavanger by your date. Not even before 2030. And it has been stated even by Solvik-Olsen himself that some of the stretches might be built with two lanes - although easily expandable - at first.


Is it possible to specify your resource? 

According resource below, there is governmental approval for the complete E39 motorway Kristiansand-Stavanger.

http://www.aftenbladet.no/lokalt/KrF-trumfet-gjennom-E39-til-Stavanger-38790b.html



> The government would stop in Lyngdal but KrF received in the last turn new E39 all the way from Kristiansand to Stavanger. This is confirmed sources who have been close to the process.


E18 / E39 Kristiansand - Lyngdal has priority for 2019-2020.

About E39 Lyngdal - Sandnes (Stavanger) there are indeed some problems. NPRA is waiting for ministries to approve government plan for new E39. The matter rests with the Ministry of Local Government and Regional Development, but they can not give any answer on when the approval comes.


----------



## Gsus

Mathias Olsen said:


> Is it possible to specify your resource?
> 
> According resource below, there is governmental approval for the complete E39 motorway Kristiansand-Stavanger.
> 
> http://www.aftenbladet.no/lokalt/KrF-trumfet-gjennom-E39-til-Stavanger-38790b.html


Your own link does`nt say anything else than the fact that Kristiansand-Ålgård is put into Nye veiers portfolio. And the only thing said about dates is that everything should be finished within 20 years. And from the date of that article, that means 3035. And one of the major points with the organizing of Nye veier is that the politicians is not prioritizing which section that is to be built when. That is ut to Nye veier. And the section between Lyngdal and Ålgård is the least traficated part of all their projects. That does`nt necessary means that it will be prioritized last.

http://www.aftenbladet.no/okonomi/Ikke-nok-penger-til-firefelts-E-39-13652b.html

Here`s an article from the same paper. Don`t know if your getting through the pay-wall, but the free version says enough. Finn Åsmund Hobbesland, chief of planning in Nye veer sais that four lanes is planned, but there wont be enough money to build it like that. The zoning will have room for four lanes, but it will probably be built with two lanes, and passing lanes on some of the least traficated sections. Again 20 years is mentioned as the time they are gonna use on all the projects.

http://www.fvn.no/nyheter/lokalt/Starter-utbygging-av-E-39-i-2018-457663b.html

This link without a pay-wall only mention the section Kristiansand-Vigeland until 2022.

http://www.fvn.no/nyheter/lokalt/Samferdselsminister-Ketil-Solvik-Olsen-om-E-39---Denne-veien-kommer_-det-er-sikkert-461648b.html

In the link above Solvik-Olsen himself says that some section might be built with two lanes at first. I think Fedrelandsvennen has a cheap trial on the pay-articles, unless you already subscribe. Many of the articles about this in both Fædrelandsvennen and Stavanger aftenblad was open for anyone before almost everything was taken behind the pay-wall. Including old articles.

By reading different articles where Ketil Solvik-Olsen is interviewed, I´ve registered that he always talks about the section being "planned" for four lanes. Not whether everything will be build that way from start.


----------



## Mathias Olsen

Gsus said:


> Your own link does`nt say anything else than the fact that Kristiansand-Ålgård is put into Nye veiers portfolio. And the only thing said about dates is that everything should be finished within 20 years. And from the date of that article, that means 3035.


Thanks for the resources. I agree with you much is uncertain and that we have to see construction to have a view what is really going on. 
However, there it is still not impossible that a 4-lane motorway construction will start all the way from Kristiansand to Sandnes. In one of your resources we can read that Nye Veier wants to construct a 4-lane motorway:



> http://www.fvn.no/nyheter/lokalt/Starter-utbygging-av-E-39-i-2018-457663b.html
> Vedtaket i Nye Veier betyr firefelts vei helt til Stavanger.


Planned is a 4-lane motorway bridge at Vigeland with an altitude of 80 m.












Gsus said:


> And one of the major points with the organizing of Nye veier is that the politicians is not prioritizing which section that is to be built when. That is ut to Nye veier. And the section between Lyngdal and Ålgård is the least traficated part of all their projects. That does`nt necessary means that it will be prioritized last.


In an article on October 31, 2016, Nye Veier’s CEO says, the organisation wants to speed up motorway construction, for example parts E6 Kolomoen-Moelv will be already open in 2019, while NPRA planning was 2023. 

http://www.dagsavisen.no/innenriks/nye-veier-flere-ar-tidligere-1.798539

More important, *E39 Kristiansand West Vigeland has priority for 2019-2020*, together with E6 Kolomoen-Moelv. When Nye Veier will be able to realise construction this way, parts of E39 Kristiansand West Vigeland can be open some years even before 2022.


----------



## Gsus

Mathias Olsen said:


> Thanks for the resources. I agree with you much is uncertain and that we have to see construction to have a view what is really going on.
> However, there it is still not impossible that a 4-lane motorway construction will start all the way from Kristiansand to Sandnes. In one of your resources we can read that Nye Veier wants to construct a 4-lane motorway:


I guess we`ll just have to wait and see. Although Nye veier wants to cut cost, prices in the construction sector might rise more than the gain, and other factors might come in.



Mathias Olsen said:


> In an article on October 31, 2016, Nye Veier’s CEO says, the organisation wants to speed up motorway construction, for example parts E6 Kolomoen-Moelv will be already open in 2019, while NPRA planning was 2023.
> 
> http://www.dagsavisen.no/innenriks/nye-veier-flere-ar-tidligere-1.798539
> 
> More important, *E39 Kristiansand West Vigeland has priority for 2019-2020*, together with E6 Kolomoen-Moelv. When Nye Veier will be able to realise construction this way, parts of E39 Kristiansand West Vigeland can be open some years even before 2022.


I really hope that the governments budget to Nye veier wont be smaller than the 3,1 billion NOK forecasted. But I´m affraid that Venstre might get through a cut of some part to increase spending on public transportation. As if public transportation does`nt use roads :lol: Really hope that the three sections that now underway (Kolomoen-Moelv, Rugtvedt-Dørdal and Tvedestrand-Arendal) will be able to continue as usual. That would be a huge improvement on the Oslo-Lillehammer corridor, and on the Oslo-Kristiansand corridor, excluding the the only really bad parts left on that stretch.

Edit: 3,1 billion is the 2017 budget.


----------



## Mathias Olsen

Heavy snowfall in some places in southern and eastern Norway. 

Not only road traffic has problems. Even Oslo Airport Gardermoen has problems because of the heavy snow with many delayed flights.

E 134 on Jerpetjønn Telemark










Trucks blocked the narrow road near Amot. 










An upgrade to a wider road has been approved by NPRA and more important a new E134 expressway section via Rauland that will tacke this kind of annoying moments in future. But we are still waiting when constuction will start.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

*E16 Stalheim*

There are plans for a circa 6.3 kilometer long 3-lane tunnel on E16 at the Hordaland-Sogn og Fjordane border. It will bypass the existing Stalheim and Sivle Tunnels and bypass an avalanche-prone stretch of road. 

The zoning plan was recently approved by Aurland municipality. Due to the altitude difference between the east (lower) and west (higher) tunnel portals, there will be a climbing lane.

Alternative L1 was chosen.


----------



## metasmurf

So more money to the political monument E16. They could probably have built tunnels under the entire Hardangervidda and Haukeli for less money than what's already/will be poured into that sinkhole.


----------



## berlinwroclaw

metasmurf said:


> So more money to the political monument E16. They could probably have built tunnels under the entire Hardangervidda and Haukeli for less money than what's already/will be poured into that sinkhole.


I agree with you. But there are signals politicians support your suggestion. The E16 section is part of Bergen-Olso via E16 and Rv52. There are good reasons to believe the proposed tunnel will never be constructed, but the budget will be used for Bergen Arm (10+ billion), Haukeli tunnels (10+ billion) and E134 Rauland section (10+ billion).

Political situation for the E134 via Haukeli has improved much last months. Now there is a majority for the Bergen Arm. The majority in Hordaland wants only E134 via Haukeli and no more money in or Rv7 or Rv52.
http://www.bedrevei.no/2016/11/hordalandspolitikere-vil-ha-e134-sier-nei-til-rv7-og-rv52/#more-5551


----------



## ElviS77

metasmurf said:


> So more money to the political monument E16. They could probably have built tunnels under the entire Hardangervidda and Haukeli for less money than what's already/will be poured into that sinkhole.


Well, no,* they* couldn't... Noone could, actually...

Far more important, though, are the facts that this tunnel will a) most likely be a part on the second Oslo-Bergen link - second to Haukeli, of course - via Hemsedal, and - even more important to most average Norwegians, I suspect... - b) remove a major avalanche and rockfall hazard on an important road. This is our predicament, we have substandard roads cris-crossing difficult and often dangerous terrain, and for the locals, such problems take precedence over fanciful ideas about a Oslo-Bergen motorway/expressway. And our politicians do sometimes listen to such complaints, rightly or wrongly...


----------



## metasmurf

ElviS77 said:


> Well, no,* they* couldn't... Noone could, actually...
> 
> Far more important, though, are the facts that this tunnel will a) most likely be a part on the second Oslo-Bergen link - second to Haukeli, of course - via Hemsedal, and - even more important to most average Norwegians, I suspect... - b) remove a major avalanche and rockfall hazard on an important road. This is our predicament, we have substandard roads cris-crossing difficult and often dangerous terrain, and for the locals, such problems take precedence over fanciful ideas about a Oslo-Bergen motorway/expressway. And our politicians do sometimes listen to such complaints, rightly or wrongly...


I've been to Norway numerous times so the conditions there aren't exactly news to me. Secondly, when have I ever said anything in this thread about supporting an Oslo - Bergen motorway? I'm talking about the decision regarding E16 in the 90's. If the same amount of money that has been spent on E16 would have been spent on either Rv7 or Rv7/Fv50 (which was the plan prior to the 90's) a winter safe good standard 2-lane road would have been in place by now.


----------



## ElviS77

metasmurf said:


> I've been to Norway numerous times so the conditions there aren't exactly news to me. Secondly, when have I ever said anything in this thread about supporting an Oslo - Bergen motorway?


I certainly don't suggest anything of the sort, my apologies if I came across that way. It was meant as a good-natured jestful comment to the thread as a whole.



metasmurf said:


> I'm talking about the decision regarding E16 in the 90's. If the same amount of money that has been spent on E16 would have been spent on either Rv7 or Rv7/Fv50 (which was the plan prior to the 90's) a winter safe good standard 2-lane road would have been in place by now.


This is where I partly disagree... Both those road alignments have serious deficiencies, chief among which a very long and steep section on the western side as well as an exposed mountain section which couldn't and still can't be made right without serious investments beyond what we've seen along the E16 (as a side note, the tunnel which began this would, of course, have been part of any (then) rv 50 solution...). I do, however, agree that prioritizing E16 Filefjell into the 21st century was a mistake. Ever since the 90s, I've thought that the best would be to focus on Haukeli and Hemsedal and make only smaller investments along the other corridors. That might just happen now, but I'm still not holding my breath...


----------



## ChrisZwolle

The Tønsberg toll cordon will end its toll collection on 20 November. 

Apparently phase I of the Tønsberg investment package was paid for, and phase II was defeated in a referendum in 2005, so they did not pursue it.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

*E6 Minnesund - Kolomoen*

Some photos of E6 from Minnesund to Kolomoen. This stretch of motorway opened to traffic in 2014-2015 and runs alongside Mjøsa, Norway's largest lake, almost identical in surface area as Lake Garda.


E6-55 by European Roads, on Flickr


E6-59 by European Roads, on Flickr


E6-62 by European Roads, on Flickr


E6-67 by European Roads, on Flickr


E6-77 by European Roads, on Flickr


E6-78 by European Roads, on Flickr


E6-81 by European Roads, on Flickr


----------



## Ingenioren

Some photos of the E6 bridge in Sarpsborg:


----------



## MattiG

Ingenioren said:


> Some photos of the E6 bridge in Sarpsborg:


Uhh...

Such a massive bridge over a residential zone does not increase the standard of living.

Why was the original bridge not built about a kilometer downstream, something like in the following chart?


----------



## ChrisZwolle

The built a second span to expand it to a motorway. The first span opened in 1978 and the second one opened in 2008. Arguments for the exact location of infrastructure were a little different in the 1960s (the bridge construction started in 1970).


----------



## OulaL

ChrisZwolle said:


> The built a second span to expand it to a motorway. The first span opened in 1978 and the second one opened in 2008. Arguments for the exact location of infrastructure were a little different in the 1960s (the bridge construction started in 1970).


Of course the opposite-running roadways don't necessarily need to be next to each other; but then again, if the first bridge was there in the first place, the second one didn't probably make that much a difference.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

*Fv. 91 Ullsfjord Link*

There are plans to build a fixed link across the Ullsfjord, not far east of Tromsø in Northern Norway. 

These were the alternatives as of May 2016. (location)


----------



## MattiG

OulaL said:


> Of course the opposite-running roadways don't necessarily need to be next to each other; but then again, if the first bridge was there in the first place, the second one didn't probably make that much a difference.


Of course. Still, the question was about why the first bridge was built there. I believe such violent constructions were pretty rare in Norway even in 1960's and 1970's.


----------



## Bjørne

MattiG said:


> I believe such violent constructions were pretty rare in Norway even in 1960's and 1970's.


Ever heard of Bymotorveien (1965) in Oslo?

This plan included a 16-lane motorway through downtown Oslo, and would require demolishing about 12 whole city districts.

Frogner & Royal Castle:









Grünerløkka:









Grünerløkka / Sinsen:


----------



## Heico-M

Erm, a sixteen lane motrway? In Oslo? 1965? What the f...? 
And right through the Royal garden?


----------



## italystf

Such extreme urban motorway plans weren't unheard of in the 1960s.
London, for example was supposed to get 4 (!) motorways ring roads, that would have required the demolition of large areas of the city.
In NYC they planned several elevated freeways across Manhattan.


----------



## MattiG

Bjørne said:


> Ever heard of Bymotorveien (1965) in Oslo?
> 
> This plan included a 16-lane motorway through downtown Oslo, and would require demolishing about 12 whole city districts.


It is good to distinguish four different things: a vision, a scenario, a plan, and the implementation.

Everyone can draw lines on a map, but these seldom are serious plans but basis for the further discussion.

Similar maps were drawn in Helsinki, too:










Later generations have said this was a plan, but it is not true. The City of Helsinki ordered four different scenarios based on various assumptions, and this was one of those. 

Two quite violent motorway implementations took place in Finland in the 1960's, in Hämeenlinna and Karhula:



















In addition, there were a plan to destroy the city of Jyväskylä:










The first 2 kilometers of that plan got built. The times changed quickly, and the plan was abandoned. Later, the motorway section has been downgraded to a street.

I raised the question because I did not know there are arrangements like the Sandesund brigde of Sarpsborg in Norway. (Not counting anything in Oslo, were such constructions are understandable.) I have driven on this bridge, but one cannot see the motorway bridge details while driving on it.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

*Fv. 7 Bjørga Tunnel*

The 1.6 kilometer long Bjørga Tunnel in Granvin municipality opened to traffic today. It bypasses a stretch that is prone to rockslides. It also bypasses a scenic, but very narrow stretch of road.



















http://www.hordaland.no/nn-NO/nyheitsarkiv/2016/bjorke-kutt-opna-bjorgatunellen-i-granvin/


----------



## MichiH

MichiH said:


> *Rv4:* Lunner/Gran – Jaren 9.3km (2013 to 2016) – project – map


The project page indicates a completion "by year-end 2016/2017".



> Vegen skal stå ferdig ved årsskiftet 2016/2017.


I found a news article from October 2016 indicating a completion in 2017.

Does anyone know when it's expected to be opened, early, mid or late 2017?


----------



## ChrisZwolle

*Fv. 653 Eiksund Tunnel*

I visited the northwest coastal region of Southern Norway in June. I took a ride across County Road (fylkesvei) 653 from Volda to Eiksund.

Fv. 653 runs through the Eiksund Tunnel. It is 7.7 kilometers long and goes 287 meters below sea level. It's the deepest undersea tunnel in the world. There is an 8% grade on average, maxing out at 9.6%. There is also an average speed check, even in 2nd gear you have to brake to keep it from going over 80 km/h. There are climbing lanes uphill on either side. 

The real altitude difference is closer to 350 meters as the tunnel portals are located higher than sea level.

1. Coming from Volda, along the Ørstafjord.

Fylkesvei 653-1 by European Roads, on Flickr

2. Average speed check sign.

Fylkesvei 653 average speed check by European Roads, on Flickr

3. The Eiksund Tunnel.

Fylkesvei 653 Eiksund Tunnel by European Roads, on Flickr

4. The Eiksund side of the tunnel-bridge.

Fylkesvei 653-4 by European Roads, on Flickr

5. The surrounding mountains are between 900 and 1300 m high.

Fylkesvei 653 Eiksund by European Roads, on Flickr

6. The Eiksund Bridge

Fylkesvei 653-7 by European Roads, on Flickr

7. Panoramic view. It was a great and warm day (the average high in Volda is only 13°C in June).

Fylkesvei 653 panoramic view at Eiksund by European Roads, on Flickr


----------



## Agent 006

MichiH said:


> The project page indicates a completion "by year-end 2016/2017".
> 
> I found a news article from October 2016 indicating a completion in 2017.
> 
> Does anyone know when it's expected to be opened, early, mid or late 2017?


Most of the stretch opens january 2017. Electronic works delays opening of the tunnels with 2-4 months. So in may 2017 everything should be ready.


----------



## OAQP

I raised the question because I did not know there are arrangements like the Sandesund brigde of Sarpsborg in Norway. (Not counting anything in Oslo, were such constructions are understandable.) I have driven on this bridge, but one cannot see the motorway bridge details while driving on it.[/QUOTE]

The only other example I can think of is the E18 crossing in Drammen (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drammen_Bridge). Incidentially, this is also a 1km+ crossing built in the 1970s and dualled in the 2000s.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

*Oslofjord Crossing*

Statens Vegvesen has recommended to build the northern bridge route to cross the Oslofjord south of Oslo.

The current Oslofjord Tunnel (7.3 km, 7% grade) opened to traffic in 2000. The tolls were lifted in 2016. 

Earlier studies included southern alternatives. Present studies have focused on northern alternatives.

There were a couple of alternatives considered;

* build a second tube to the existing tunnel 
* build a new tunnel route to the north (11 or 14 km long)
* build a new bridge route to the north 

The northern routes allow for a motorway-standard road, with 110 km/h with the bridge alternative and 90 km/h with the tunnel alternative.

Twinning of the existing tunnel was eliminated due to the steepness, safety and the fact that a northern route shortens travel distance by 7 kilometers. The northern tunnel alternatives were eliminated based on safety, maintenance and availability. 

So Statens Vegvesen has recommended the northern bridge route.

There are still two alternatives;

* a box girder bridge (west bridge) and suspension bridge (east bridge)
* double-span suspension bridge (west bridge) and suspension bridge (east bridge).

If the latter is chosen, it would be the first major double-span suspension bridge in Europe. The spans would be in the range of 2 x 700 - 750 m for the west bridge and 1000 - 1100 m for the east bridge.


----------



## Kjello0

Really hope they end up with alternative 6. But alternative 2 with a suspension bridge in west is also fine.


----------



## Bjørne

Kjello0 said:


> Really hope they end up with alternative 6. But alternative 2 with a suspension bridge in west is also fine.


Alternative 6 includes alternative 2 (both suspension bridges). It just has different routes on each side.


----------



## berlinwroclaw

Political support for the E134 via Haukeli and the Bergen Arm, Bergen-Odda is growing. The Conservative party in Hordaland supports the Bergen Arm, a true political breakthrough. The Conservatives were the only opponents for the Bergen Arm. There was already a political majority to support Rv52 as second EW road and the construction of the Bergen Arm. 










http://www.bedrevei.no/
There are signals KVU for the Bergen Arm to E134 Haukeli-Oslo will be implemented in the first half of next National Transport period, that means before 2025. When we assume a construction time of 3 years for the new Jondal bridge, a ferry–free and short road from Bergen to Oslo may be available in 2028.


----------



## Ingenioren

ChrisZwolle said:


> Statens Vegvesen has recommended to build the northern bridge route to cross the Oslofjord south of Oslo.


Why this route wasn't chosen 20 years ago when it's such a shortcut is incredible.... The tunnel could maybe be used for indoor downhill skiing in the future? Such a facility have been proposed for numerous locations around Oslo.


----------



## suburbicide

Ingenioren said:


> Why this route wasn't chosen 20 years ago when it's such a shortcut is incredible.


Could it have something to do with the planned airport at Hurum? Statens vegvesen recommended a bridge over a tunnel in the 90s too, but further south than the current proposal. The decision to build the tunnel was political after vocal local protests to the bridge plans. 

Here's a render of the bridge the alternatives considered in the early 90s:


----------



## ChrisZwolle

*Ljø Tunnel*

The 3650 meter long Ljø Tunnel will be inaugurated on 17 December. The tunnel is part of Fylkesvei (County Road) 60 between Hellesylt and Stranda (near the Geirangerfjord). It bypasses two older tunnels.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Ingenioren said:


> Why this route wasn't chosen 20 years ago when it's such a shortcut is incredible....


A lot of infrastructure built or planned in the 1990s seems to have been planned with the lowest cost in mind. They're already expanding or replacing roads and tunnels built 20 years ago... 

Just recently I've read about a proposal to bypass the entire Gudvanga Tunnel and Flenja Tunnel on E16. And they're also reconsidering tunnels with a steep grade, which are now seen as unfavorable and unsafe. Steep tunnels account for a disproportional large amount of tunnel fires. 

Only 4% of the tunnels have a grade of 6% or more, but 44% of the tunnel fires occurs in them. And they're more likely to be low-volume tunnels, which suggests these steep tunnels are significantly less safe than tunnels with grades of 5% or less. They also changed the grade on the Boknafjord Tunnel relatively late in the planning process (making it longer).


----------



## ChrisZwolle

*E6 Tana Bridge*

Today a 333 million NOK contract was signed to construct the new Tana Bridge (E6) in Northern Norway. It will be completed by fall 2019.

It is a cable-stayed bridge with a total length of 260 m, of which the main bridge is 224 m long and the main span is 180 meter long. The pylon will be 95.2 meters tall. 

The current bridge is only 5 meters wide and was built in 1948. It is the only bridge across the Tana River in Norway, and thus the only road access to eastern Finnmark. The nearest bridge is near Utsjoki, some 70 kilometers upstream on the Finland border.


----------



## OulaL

ChrisZwolle said:


> It is the only bridge across the Tana River in Norway, and thus the only road access to eastern Finnmark. The nearest bridge is near Utsjoki, some 70 kilometers upstream on the Finland border.


The shortest route between eastern Finnmark and most of Norway is through Finland (and Sweden) anyway :cheers:


----------



## MattiG

ChrisZwolle said:


> The current bridge is only 5 meters wide and was built in 1948. It is the only bridge across the Tana River in Norway, and thus the only road access to eastern Finnmark.


To clarify: The bridge is the only road access to eastern Finnmark on the Norwegian road network. There are roads via Nuorgam and Sevettijärvi in Finland as well as the E105 via Russia.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

*Hardangervidda*

Convoy driving on Rv. 7 across Hardangervidda.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

ChrisZwolle said:


> Toll collection will end on E39 between Orkanger and Trondheim (also called: Øysand–Thamshamn) on 31 January 2017. Tolls were collected for a period of 15 years to fund the upgrade, which opened to traffic on 30 June 2005.


Øysand - Thamshamn is more precise. This road has many single tube tunnels and relative high traffic (in Norwegian terms). I predict tolls will be back in a few years.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

^^ For a duplication to four lanes?


----------



## metasmurf

I drove that stretch this summer during rush hour. Nice piece of motortrafikkvei  E6 was packed but when I got on E39 the traffic got lighter so it wasn't that bad. What's the AADT there?


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

It was 10 000 some years ago in the eastern end. I can check visveg later to get an updated figure. There are in any case some EU regulations that kick in due to the tunnels. 

Edit: 12 400 at eastern end (Klett/Øysand ) , and 8 600 at the western end (Thamshamn), both numbers from 2015.


ChrisZwolle said:


> ^^ For a duplication to four lanes?


Yes, but currently the local focus is on E6 south and north of Trondheim, which the situation is more accute. Probably, though, the lack of tolls on E39, will lead to higher traffic growth and and push it higher up on the priority list. Housing is significantly cheaper in Orkanger and the towns along this road than in Trondheim, making them attractive for commuting. 

This project on E39 was the first "OPS" road project of Norway, btw (public-private partnership, PPP). In these kinds of schemes, a private company or consortium has the responsibility both for the construction and maintenance/operation of the road for a number of years after construction. It is no doubt that this scheme, introduced by the conservatives and deplored by the leftists, has been a resounding success for this project. It was constructed in record time at a predictable cost. The fact that the consortium also has responsibility for maintenance ensures that robust solutions are chosen under the construction, unlike some other recent projects of Norway.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

*Fv. 63*

Some more photos of Fv. 63 / County Road 63, from Geiranger to Grotli.


1. There is a private toll road to Dalsnibba. The toll fee is 130 NOK (€ 14.40).

Fylkesvei 63-1 by European Roads, on Flickr

2. The ice lakes are amazing, really a reason to visit Norway in June instead of August when it has melted away.

Fylkesvei 63-2 by European Roads, on Flickr

3. Fv. 63 is a National Tourist Road.

Fylkesvei 63-3 by European Roads, on Flickr

4. 

Fylkesvei 63-4 by European Roads, on Flickr

5. It looks arctic.

Fylkesvei 63-5 by European Roads, on Flickr

6. The Møre og Romsdal / Oppland border. The mountain on the right is the border with Sogn og Fjordane.

Fylkesvei 63-6 by European Roads, on Flickr

7. Fv. 63 ends at an intersection with Rv. 15. Until 1977, Fv. 63 continued to Grotli, it became Rv. 15 when the tunnel route opened that bypassed the old Strynefjell pass.

Fylkesvei 63-7 by European Roads, on Flickr


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

ChrisZwolle said:


> Until 1977, Fv. 63 continued to Grotli, it became Rv. 15 when the tunnel route opened that bypassed the old Strynefjell pass.


Strictly speaking, they were both RVs back then ;-)


----------



## Stafangr

54°26′S 3°24′E;137342869 said:


> Housing is significantly cheaper in Orkanger and the towns along this road than in *Trondheimtriatlonklubb.no*, making them attractive for commuting.


Auto correct?


----------



## Ingenioren

ChrisZwolle said:


> 1. There is a private toll road to Dalsnibba. The toll fee is 130 NOK (€ 14.40).


It used to be cheaper, but then the road was in bad condition - it's been renovated and a new plattform going over the edge of the cliff has been built on top so it's actually worth it:


----------



## Agent 006

Future AADT between Øysand - Buvika demanded 4 lanes long before construction started. But SVV head of planning stated that they "ville se strekningen under ett/som en helhet", and have 2 lanes also at the eastern part. This was not foresighted at all. It would have been easier to raise the question about widening of the western part now, if the eastern already had 4 lanes.


----------



## Suburbanist

Do Norwegian houses and apartment buildings normally come with electric heater outlet for parked cars (as it is somehow common in Canada)?


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

Stafangr said:


> Auto correct?


Stupid phone...



Suburbanist said:


> Do Norwegian houses and apartment buildings normally come with electric heater outlet for parked cars (as it is somehow common in Canada)?


Certainly this is somewhat common also in Norway, and I have had this opportunity in most places I have lived, and even some employers have offered this. However, my impression is that electric engine heaters have become less popular lately. This may be due to milder climate, increased popularity of fuel burning heaters (eg. webasto), but also that these electric engine heaters often are the cause of grounding problems.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Apparently in Canada they advise people not to plug in a vehicle in a garage. It is evidently the cause of many house fires. I've seen a comment from a guy in Winnipeg where his car wouldn't start after a deep freeze of -35 C, even though it was parked in the garage (but not plugged in).


----------



## Suburbanist

A closed garage can be heated as another room, right? I mean: radiators and all of that.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Sure it can, but garages are often semi-detached with poor insulation, so in most cases it's just a waste of money to heat it.


----------



## italystf

Suburbanist said:


> Do Norwegian houses and apartment buildings normally come with electric heater outlet for parked cars (as it is somehow common in Canada)?


I don't think places like Bergen do need that, due to Gulf Stream temperatures aren't usually extremely low, compared to inland areas of Canada, Russia,...


----------



## ChrisZwolle

That's true, the average low in Bergen is just around the freezing point during the winter, with February averaging a low of -0.1°C. The record low is -16°C, normally a car should be able to start with such temperatures.


----------



## MattiG

ChrisZwolle said:


> That's true, the average low in Bergen is just around the freezing point during the winter, with February averaging a low of -0.1°C. The record low is -16°C, normally a car should be able to start with such temperatures.


In about 99.99% of the cases preheating is not about making the engine to start but about comfort and saving the car. It saves time, effort (and the window glass) if there is no need to scrape the windows. It saves the engine, and the earth, too: A cold start at -20 degrees strains the engine as much as driving 500 kilometers. The emissions may be double or triple during the first few kilometers after the cold start.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Well, most other areas of Europe get cold enough for those reasons you listed as well, and they generally don't plug in their cars. Even a pre-heater is uncommon (though available). 

Idling to warm up the engine after a cold start is bad for both the engine and the environment, on the other hand, driving off with frozen windows is even worse. Every winter they publish those articles how idling the car to heat up is completely unnecessary. While that may be true, most cars would need to idle to get the A/C working, otherwise the windows would fog up immediately.


----------



## MattiG

ChrisZwolle said:


> Well, most other areas of Europe get cold enough for those reasons you listed as well, and they generally don't plug in their cars. Even a pre-heater is uncommon (though available).


Most other areas of Europe are not in the North. I would not easily compare the winter conditions of the Central-European lowlands to most of Norway and Finland as well as half of Sweden which are located to the north of the 60th latitude. For example, the thermic winter lasts about four months in the south Finland up to 5.5 months in the north. During that time, the daily average temperature is below zero.

The potential preheating season lasts longer than the thermic winter because people tend to go to work in the morning when the daily temperature is lowest. Even in the south, there may be mornings below zero from early September to early May. As scraping the windows 200 times a year is somewhat annoying, it is easy to understand why virtually every new car is equipped with some kind of a pre-heater, and most housing with dedicated parking space have power outlets. 

(A very cold temperature is not that bad it may sound. The most desperate weather is a rain or a fog followed by -3 temperature. That makes very thick and hard ice which is almost a mission impossible without heating.)

Bergen and other Norwegian coastal areas, of course, are a notable exceptions because of the sea is smoothing the temperature curve substantially. Chilly and wet all year long.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Well, you stated '_In about 99.99% of the cases preheating is not about making the engine to start but about comfort and saving the car. It saves time, effort (and the window glass) if there is no need to scrape the windows._'

Situations like these are definitely not limited to Scandinavia, but occur on a regular basis in most of Central Europe as well (not to mention Eastern Europe). Winter may be colder in Poland than Norway's coastal cities, where most of the population lives. I suppose that plugging in cars for heating may be more common in Sweden and Finland than most of Norway?


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

Although already briefly mentioned, I would just emphasize that starting with a cold engine has a huge impact on the emissions, in particular CO, HCs, and NOx, and also the fuel consumption is increasing. In total, the emissions are said to increase by 70% it is claimed in this article (not sure how that was calculated) http://www.tu.no/artikler/trodde-du-det-var-greit-a-starte-bilen-kald-tenk-om-igjen/276271. Personally, I have never experience a non-start that has been caused by cold weather alone. 

The higher prevalence of engine heaters in the Nordics compared with countries further south in Europe is probably due a mixture of a factors such as a longer cold season, a larger fraction of private parking compared with street /public parking and a long term public focus on the negative effects of cold-starts on the car and the environment.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Many mountain roads are closed due to the upcoming windstorm. They advise people not to travel today. 

Norðadalsskarð station on the Faroe Islands reported a 283 km/h wind gust this morning.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

*E39 Sandnes*

The new span of the Kvelluren Bridge of E39 in Sandnes (south of Stavanger) opens to traffic tomorrow. The old span will be renovated afterwards.


Kvelluren by Statens vegvesen Region vest, on Flickr


----------



## Rob73

54°26′S 3°24′E;137330822 said:


> Øysand - Thamshamn is more precise. This road has many single tube tunnels and relative high traffic (in Norwegian terms). I predict tolls will be back in a few years.


I always wondered why it was never built with twin tunnels and to motorway standard when they refitted the road, it's always been busy whenever i've driven it.


----------



## Rob73

Ingenioren said:


> It used to be cheaper, but then the road was in bad condition - it's been renovated and a new plattform going over the edge of the cliff has been built on top so it's actually worth it:


I never realised this was a toll road, I've been up it quite a few times when we've had visitors from overseas. Bad Rob.


----------



## Suburbanist

How much does the fact Norway was under a tall ice sheet until the 'recent' geological past make soil better or worse for tunnel excavation than mountains creating by continental derive (Alps, Pyrenees) or by much older erosion (Iberian highlands)?


----------



## Agent 006

Proposal for new N100 Road design manuals on hearing. One change is that all motorways now will be 23 m (not 20 m and 23 m), but alignment demands will on some areas be more liberal. 

http://www.vegvesen.no/***/publikasjoner/Offentlige-hoeringer/Hoering?key=1659128


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

^^ 
I think it is positive if we get rid of the substandard motorway class. Unfortunately, this change is not likely to be applied for projects under various stages of planning today, a nye d IMO, all motorways should be planned for at least 120.


Suburbanist said:


> How much does the fact Norway was under a tall ice sheet until the 'recent' geological past make soil better or worse for tunnel excavation than mountains creating by continental derive (Alps, Pyrenees) or by much older erosion (Iberian highlands)?


I am not a geologist, but I believe the main effect is that solid (Igneous) rock is fairly close to the surface in most of Norway, which makes tunnel construction easier. Especially in the lowlands of central ("Trøndelag") and eastern Norway there is one complication, however. Since the ice withdrew, the land has, and still is, rising, meaning that former seabottom with marine clay has surfaced. This clay can be very unstable once the salt is washed out.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

They call that the post-glacial rebound. Apparently it is particularly pronounced in Finland.


----------



## MattiG

ChrisZwolle said:


> They call that the post-glacial rebound. Apparently it is particularly pronounced in Finland.


Sure. It is "maannousu", literally "raise of land".

It does not have a major impact on road construction. But the marine fairways need to be upraded regularly (every 50-100 years). In addition it causes interesting legal disputes at the shoreline.

Because the rise in one metre per century in the NW and about zero in the SE, the area of the country is constantly tilting more and more. he water pressure against to the SE lakeshores increase, and the big lakes might find a new outlet toward the sea. That would be a major nature hazard. Such a phenomena has happened a few times during the last 10000 years, latest in about 4000 B.C.

Happy new year to everyone. Currently, Norway, Sweden and the West Europe are one year behind Finland.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

*E6 Hålogaland Bridge*

The bridge decks of the Hålogaland Bridge near Narvik are manufactured in Zhongshan, China.









parts are also made in Vietnam.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

*Fv. 724 Oldedalen*

Some photos of the extremely scenic County Road 724 in Oldedalen, south from Olden to the Jostedal Glacier.


Oldedalen-1 by European Roads, on Flickr


Oldedalen-2 by European Roads, on Flickr


Oldedalen-3 by European Roads, on Flickr


Oldedalen-4 by European Roads, on Flickr


Oldedalen-6 by European Roads, on Flickr


----------



## ChrisZwolle

*Fv. 655 Norangsdalen*

Some photos of Fylkesvei 655 through scenic Norangsdalen (location). It is one valley west of the better known Geirangerfjord.

1. It starts off with an error, this is not Fv. 60, but Fv. 655. This sign is located just after the Fv. 60 junction, at the start of Fv. 655.

Fylkesvei 655 Norangsdalen-1 by European Roads, on Flickr

2. Norangsdalen. 

Fylkesvei 655 Norangsdalen-2 by European Roads, on Flickr

3. 

Fylkesvei 655 Norangsdalen-3 by European Roads, on Flickr

4. 

Fylkesvei 655 Norangsdalen-4 by European Roads, on Flickr

5. 

Fylkesvei 655 Norangsdalen-5 by European Roads, on Flickr

6. 

Fylkesvei 655 Norangsdalen-6 by European Roads, on Flickr

7. 

Fylkesvei 655 Norangsdalen-7 by European Roads, on Flickr

8. 

Fylkesvei 655 Norangsdalen-8 by European Roads, on Flickr


----------



## Suburbanist

Are there plans to close the gap (bridge/tunnel) of E5 on Sognefjord?


----------



## Gsus

Suburbanist said:


> Are there plans to close the gap (bridge/tunnel) of E5 on Sognefjord?



Do you mean highway 5 (rv. 5)? If so, it`s been mentioned in the KVU for main roads east-west, but afaik no real studies of a possible structure. Rv. 5 is seen as an alternative faster road between Oslo and Ålesund than E6/E136 if such a bridge is realized together with a general lift of standard on the more of rv. 5, rv. 7, rv. 52 and E39.

I would guess such a bridge is far into the future, as the current ferry-crossing with connecting roads and tunnels is quite new (1995) an holds a high standard for the route today.


----------



## Suburbanist

Alright. I though the tunnels there were like a prelude to future works on a bridge maybe. I don't know how the tunnels look internally,

Another question: how much traffic does Rv 50 have between Aurlandsvangen and Hagafoss? It looks a strange road: it has a rather complex hairpin alignment with tunnels, three medium-length tunnels, and a quite wide alignment in the center, but it is narrow (1.5 road) at both ends of the plateau it traverses.


----------



## MattiG

Suburbanist said:


> Alright. I though the tunnels there were like a prelude to future works on a bridge maybe. I don't know how the tunnels look internally,
> 
> Another question: how much traffic does Rv 50 have between Aurlandsvangen and Hagafoss? It looks a strange road: it has a rather complex hairpin alignment with tunnels, three medium-length tunnels, and a quite wide alignment in the center, but it is narrow (1.5 road) at both ends of the plateau it traverses.


It is Fv50 nowadays. The AADT is 300 but that is not the whole truth: Because it is a tourist road, the volumes vary a lot: from 100 in Nov-Jan to 800 in the summer.

The road was originally built as an access road to the construction site of the Aurland power plant system. That explains some oddities. A very nice scenic road.


----------



## Suburbanist

MattiG said:


> It is Fv50 nowadays. The AADT is 300 but that is not the whole truth: Because it is a tourist road, the volumes vary a lot: from 100 in Nov-Jan to 800 in the summer.
> 
> The road was originally built as an access road to the construction site of the Aurland power plant system. That explains some oddities. A very nice scenic road.


I thought the road was closed during winter. Which of the major links in the region are close seasonally? Just Rv53?

Are all these tolled tunnels and bridges financed in such a way that toll collection is temporary (until construction costs are paid only)?


----------



## MattiG

Suburbanist said:


> I thought the road was closed during winter. Which of the major links in the region are close seasonally? Just Rv53?


No, it is not closed. (Right now it is, for technical problems whatever it means. A broken snowplougher perhaps.) The local admin wants to close it and the Tyin-Årdal part of the Fv53, but the cabin owners and other locals resist. For Fv50, the energy company E-CO is also "concerned", because they have six power plants in the area, with the total production capacity of about 1000 MW. 

The only major links nearby to be closed for winter are Fv51 and Fv55 (Valdresflya and Sognefjellet), I believe. Such tourist roads as Fv13 Gaularfjell are not major ones. Of course, many roads are closed temporarily, or the convoy mode is turned on. 



> Are all these tolled tunnels and bridges financed in such a way that toll collection is temporary (until construction costs are paid only)?


About so. The tolls cover a predefined percentage of the construction cost, the interest, and the cost to collect. Sometimes, the tolls are reintroduced, or the period is extended, because of new projects. In some cases, the toll is collected as an extra fee on the ferries. The toll rings around towns are permanent ones.


----------



## MattiG

italystf said:


> I think E-roads (and possibly every numbered road) should be the most logical routes between their beginning and end points, instead of following weird 'C-shaped' alingments.
> For example, the shortest and fastest road between Malmo and Kirkeness, is certainly not via E6.


That is, however, not the way how the current network was designed. It is not about connecting the endpoints but making kind of a grid. Because of the geography, the grid cannot be optimal.


----------



## g.spinoza

Besides, it cannot take into account only the endpoints. It should also pass through some other important towns.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

In most numbering systems, the termini may not be major cities. So it doesn't need to be the shortest or fastest route between both termini. In case of Norway, E6 is clearly the backbone of the road network, though some exact routings are debatable.

In case of E6, with the completion of the express road through Gudbrandsdalen, and the upcoming upgrade from Kolomoen to Moelv, it will be quite a bit more expensive to use than Rv. 3, even with the upgrade project to Elverum. Of course most people already use Rv. 3 between Oslo and Trondheim, but the increasingly high toll burden on E6 will definitely rule that one out as a good alternative, despite all the upgrades.


----------



## Ingenioren

italystf said:


> Norway and Sweden always opposed to any renumbering of E4 and E6, as it would be too expensive to change all signs. Those two roads, in fact, were supposed to get odd numbers, like other N-S roads under the new system.
> E6 used to go all the way from Rome to Kirkenes, but other countries changed the number.


That's just an excuse, we think the numbers are cool - they have been doing renumbering on very long highways here and no one mentions the costs of signs.



ChrisZwolle said:


> In case of E6, with the completion of the express road through Gudbrandsdalen, and the upcoming upgrade from Kolomoen to Moelv, it will be quite a bit more expensive to use than Rv. 3, even with the upgrade project to Elverum. Of course most people already use Rv. 3 between Oslo and Trondheim, but the increasingly high toll burden on E6 will definitely rule that one out as a good alternative, despite all the upgrades.


For a while - but all tolls must come to an end


----------



## ChrisZwolle

*E136*

Very scenic E136 from Dombås to Åndalsnes.

It's one of the nicest non-fjord valleys I've driven through in Norway (though it's difficult to list one valley as the nicest / most scenic, it's all so great).


E136-1 by European Roads, on Flickr


E136-2 by European Roads, on Flickr


E136-3 by European Roads, on Flickr


E136-4 by European Roads, on Flickr


E136-5 by European Roads, on Flickr


E136-8 by European Roads, on Flickr


E136-10 by European Roads, on Flickr


E136-11 by European Roads, on Flickr


E136-12 by European Roads, on Flickr


E136-13 by European Roads, on Flickr


----------



## Suburbanist

Do they have a policy of widening 1.5-lane roads to 2-lane roads on these long-distance axes? I know sometimes it is difficult, but there are other instances where widening roads would appear to be easy.


----------



## Kjello0

Stretches on national roads that is to narrow for a central line, is gradually replaced. And most of them is high on the priority list. Despite most of them having really low traffic numbers. 90 % of the probably have traffic numbers under 1500 a day.

A yellow central line has been the minimum standard for national roads since the late 80's. As of January 2014 there was about 1700 km of national road missing a central line. In the current national transport plan (NTP) that goes from 2014 and to 2023, it's planed to replace 370 km of those stretches.

A new NTP that goes from 2018 and to 2029 is being published this spring. And my guess is that it will include replacing a lot more of these stretches. Though, as always, it's really only the first four years that really counts for the NTP. Because by the end of those four years, a new NTP have been published. Most likely by a different government.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

*E39 Kvivsvegen*

I made a video of E39 'Kvivsvegen' from Hornindal to Volda.


----------



## FloatingSzczecin

*Loftesnes Bridge - Sogndal*



> *Loftesnes Bridge - Sogndal. Production in Szczecin/Poland.*​


















































Code:


http://www.24kurier.pl/


----------



## ChrisZwolle

*Bjarkøy Connection*

Breakthrough has been achieved yesterday at the Bjarkøy Connection, a 3250 meter long undersea tunnel between the islands of Grytøya and Bjarkøy, north of Harstad in Troms, Northern Norway.


----------



## hammersklavier

That's a rather expensive fixed link for a couple of islands with a small population and no obvious connection to the main road network...


----------



## Agent 006

*New road company (Nye veier)*

The new private road company will be allowed to build simpler designed motorways than _Statens vegvesen _does. E18 Langangen - Dørdal was planned and partly regulated as a 23 m road, but will now only be 21 m. At least two E6 intersections between Kolomoen and Moelv will be simplified. The pictures beneath shows the interchanges at Moelv (1) and Brumunddal (2).

If saving money is the essential point, I guess _Statens vegvesen_ could have done the same job, and a new company didn't need to be established with all its costs. 

This...









...will end up like this









And this...









...ends up like this


----------



## FloatingSzczecin

*Loftesnes Bridge - Sogndal veiing 430 tonn (del II)*



> *Loftesnes Bridge - Sogndal veiing 430 tonn (del II).*​







































































































































Code:


http://www.vegvesen.no/Riksveg/rv5loftesnesbrui/Nyhetsarkiv/snart-montering-av-loftesnesbrui 
http://www.sognavis.no/siste-nytt/nyhende/frste-seksjon-er-p-plass 
http://www.marinegroup.se/


----------



## Ingenioren

Agent 006 said:


> *New road company (Nye veier)*
> 
> The new private road company will be allowed to build simpler designed motorways than _Statens vegvesen _does. E18 Langangen - Dørdal was planned and partly regulated as a 23 m road, but will now only be 21 m. At least two E6 intersections between Kolomoen and Moelv will be simplified.


It's unfortunate to build low capacity instersections in these towns, they are likely to be the bottlenecks in the region quite soon - as is the case for the intersections on E6 in Østfold, then they will have to be rebuilt again.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

*E18 Varodd Bridge*

PORR has been selected for the replacement of the Varodd Bridge of E18 in Kristiansand in Southern Norway. 

They made the lowest bid of 542 million NOK / € 61 million to replace the 1956 suspension bridge with a new cantilevered concrete box girder bridge. There will be six lanes once the project is completed by early 2020.

Present bridges:









Future bridges:


----------



## devo

^^
Six lanes, two bus lanes though 
The first bridge (1956) was the longest suspension bridge in Northern Europe when it opened.
And, the second bridge (1994) had the longest span for a cantilevered concrete box bridge. The new bridge will be identical, and the foundations were prepared when the first concrete bridge was built in the 90s.
Before 1956 there used to be a ferry, but there was almost "nothing" on the other side of the fjord (where the first picture is taken). The main road eastward (Rv 40, now E 18) went around the fjord.


----------



## Olabil

italystf said:


> Manaus, Brazil (1.8 million) has just a paved road to Venezuela and a gravel road (with a ferry across the Amazon river) to the rest of Brazil.
> Anchorage, USA (0.3 million) has only a road to the rest of the continent (another road goes south, but it ends in a peninsula).


Iquitos, Peru (450.000) is the lagrest inland city with no road access to the rest of the country, except some small nearby villages.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

*Fv. 63 Trollstigen*

The famous 'Trollstigen' of Fylkesvei 63 south of Åndalsnes. It is one of the best-known tourist attractions in Norway.


Trollstigen-1 by European Roads, on Flickr


Trollstigen-2 by European Roads, on Flickr


Trollstigen-3 by European Roads, on Flickr


Trollstigen-4 by European Roads, on Flickr


Trollstigen-5 by European Roads, on Flickr


Trollstigen-6 by European Roads, on Flickr


Trollstigen-7 by European Roads, on Flickr


----------



## ChrisZwolle

The inauguration of the Fredrikstad Bridge on 18 August 1957. The 824 meter long bridge spans the Glomma River with an 196 meter long arch. It is 64 meters tall.


----------



## metasmurf

*Rv. 77 Tjernfjellet construction start*










Construction of a new 3,3 km long tunnel on Rv 77 has started. This also includes 490m new road and a new intersection with E6 on the west side of the tunnel as well as 800m of new road on the east side. The project is set out to be completed in 2019. It will make Rv77 together with Swedish Riksväg 95 (Silvervägen) more reliable as a connection between Norway and Sweden. 










Visualisation of the new intersection with E6


Junkerdal by Simon Hällström, on Flickr

The current steep section that will be bypassed by the new tunnel.


----------



## Galro

Some pictures taken of Hålogalandsbrua last December. 


























http://www.infoto.no/Hålogalandsbrua/i-LjF6BqL


----------



## ChrisZwolle

*Fylkesvei 17*

Funding has been allocated to the Fylkesvei 17 / 720 upgrade project near Steinkjer. At a pricetag of 1.6 billion NOK / € 180 million, fylkesvei 17 will be upgraded to a higher standard, 80 km/h road. It will also include a branch of fylkesvei 720 to Malm and a 580 meter long bridge across Beitstadsundet.

It will be a tolled project, with three toll points. The project is slated for completion in 2019.










Source: https://www.regjeringen.no/no/aktuelt/finansiering-pa-plass-for-dyrstad---sprova---malm/id2538399/


----------



## Galro

Some renders of the planned upgrade of e18 Filipstad (Oslo) that I do not think have been posted yet.




































http://www.vianovapt.no/portfolio-archive/e18-filipstad/


----------



## ChrisZwolle

A render of the new four lane E39 bridge across Trysfjorden on the Mandal - Kristiansand upgrade section.

They don't show dimensions, but Google Earth suggests a span of approximately 230-240 meters, which is quite long for a cantilever box girder bridge (Stolma Bridge near Austevoll has a 301 meter span and is quoted as the longest in the world).


----------



## ChrisZwolle

*E39 Gjemnessund Bridge*

I took some photos of the Gjemnessund Bridge in June 2016. It is a suspension bridge with a 623 meter main span. It opened to traffic in 1992 as part of the 'Krifast' project to link Kristiansund with the hinterland by tunnels and bridges. It was the longest span in Norway at that time. It was a toll road until 2012.


Gjemnessund Bridge-1 by European Roads, on Flickr


Gjemnessund Bridge-3 by European Roads, on Flickr


Gjemnessund Bridge-4 by European Roads, on Flickr


Gjemnessund Bridge-8 by European Roads, on Flickr


Gjemnessund Bridge-12 by European Roads, on Flickr


----------



## devo

ChrisZwolle said:


> A render of the new four lane E39 bridge across Trysfjorden on the Mandal - Kristiansand upgrade section.
> 
> They don't show dimensions, but Google Earth suggests a span of approximately 230-240 meters, which is quite long for a cantilever box girder bridge (Stolma Bridge near Austevoll has a 301 meter span and is quoted as the longest in the world).


Total length:


Detaljreguleringsplan for E39 Søgne øst – Mandal øst said:


> Krysning av Trysfjorden planlegges med to parallelle, store betongbruer av typen fritt frambygg, hver av dem på ca. *520 meter.* http://www.nyeveier.no/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/E39-Søgne-øst-Mandal-øst-Planbeskrivelse.pdf


Span:


Asbjørn Heieraas said:


> Hovedspennet over fjorden blir *260 meter* langt med to 40–50 meter høye bropilarer som plasseres på land på hver sin side av fjorden. http://www.aftenbladet.no/innenriks/Slik-blir-Trysfjordbroa-og-Sognetunnelen-pa-E39-537926b.html


----------



## ChrisZwolle

*Sogn og Fjordane Coastal Road*

There are plans for a massive upgrade of 'Kystvegen' (the Coastal Road) along the Sogn og Fjordane coast. It is projected to cost 22.8 billion NOK ( € 2.6 billion ).

This is the recommended alternative:


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

I was not aware of this ambition to have a second continous route crossing most of the fjords in one of least populated counties of Norway. It seems a bit over the top optimistic. However, to me, this second outer route would have made much more sense as a national route than the current E39 as it has the potential to be both shorter and cheaper. It should be noted, though, that this study was ordered by the county, not the state. It has just been decided that this county, Sogn og Fjordane will be merged with the much more populous Hordaland (with Bergen). Hopefully this may increase the chances for a more sensible alignment of E39 as such issues of national interest no longer will be decided by the extreme local focus of the politicians of Sogn og Fjordane alone.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

*Riksvei 70*

A couple of photos of riksvei 70 from Kristiansund to Sunndalsøra

1. Rv. 70 runs partially concurrent with E39.

Riksvei 70-1 by European Roads, on Flickr

2. The Bergsøysund Bridge. It is a floating bridge

Riksvei 70-2 by European Roads, on Flickr

3. The bridge deck is built on a truss that is supported by pontoons.

Riksvei 70-3 by European Roads, on Flickr

4. 

Riksvei 70-4 by European Roads, on Flickr

5. The Oppdølstrand Tunnel (7430 m long). It opened in 2014 to bypass a stretch of coastal road that was prone to landslides (in addition to being narrow).

Riksvei 70-5 by European Roads, on Flickr


----------



## Suburbanist

How congested is the main Bergen axes on a daily basis (E39, E555)?


----------



## MattiG

Suburbanist said:


> How congested is the main Bergen axes on a daily basis (E39, E555)?


Have you looked at the TomTom Traffic index data: https://www.tomtom.com/en_gb/trafficindex/city/bergen

Not very congested.


----------



## Ingenioren

New E18 trough Asker. 3+3 with a parallell Bus-way.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

*Tønsberg*

A video showing the alternatives for a new connection to Nøtterøy south of Tønsberg. Presently you can only get on and off the Nøtterøy area via central Tønsberg. This link would provide a new four-lane connection to the mainland. 

Nøtterøy municipality has a population of 22,000 and there is also some of Tønsberg located on the island.

I like the cable-stayed bridge alternative. It would be a nice landmark for Tønsberg.


----------



## Bjørne

*E16 Hønefoss*

Bane NOR released four new YouTube videos of the new Ringeriksbanen, which is being planned alongside the new E16, today. Near the end of one of the videos (from about 1:25), you can see the proposed E16/RV7 interchange. It looks huge (by Norwegian scale)!


----------



## ElviS77

The government has finally decided on where the new east-west links (Oslo-Bergen) should be. It is of course already decided that E134 Haukeli would be one of those, and it was widely expected that the administration would choose between rv 7 Hardangervidda and rv 52 Hemsedal as the second, northerly, option. Statens Vegvesen favoured rv 52, as did most national political parties (not the Conservatives, though), but local opinion has been divided. Consensus amongst road geeks has also been difficult to find, but I do believe that most agreed that no more than two links should be prioritized. So what was decided? *Both* the rv 52 and the rv 7 should win the race... as well as the E16 Filefjell... 

Thus, nothing has really happened, and even I, who have numerous posts to my name adressing both the geograpical and political particularities of Norway, didn't expect this outcome. The consequences are difficult to assess, but it is highly likely that we will see divided funding between the three, and most likely even the E134 will struggle to get prioritized for real. The Haukeli-Bergen link is not likely to become reality for decades... and we will probably see a complete political rematch with the next change of government, making any proper decision something for future generations. This is nothing new, of course, we were here in the 70s and 90s as well, but if there was one thing I thought the current government might be capable of improving, it would be road infrastructure planning for the future. How wrong I was...

https://www.nrk.no/buskerud/velger-ikke-bare-en-ny-stamvei-1.13436166

(In Norwegian...)


----------



## Suburbanist

So no freeway Bergen-Oslo completed before 2030?


----------



## ElviS77

Oslo-Bergen motorway will, the way I see it, never happen through the mountains. An Oslo-Kristiansand-Stavanger-Bergen motorway is planned, however, but not before 2030. The problem is that instead of at least being able to hope for one high-quality highway and one fairly decent two-lane road, we're now stuck with more of the same: four links that compete for the same money. If this remains the plan (which I highly doubt longish-term), we'll have a reasonably improved E134 with no direct link to Bergen, a heated debate about whether to prioritize loooong tunnels on rv 7 or on rv 52, and an E16 which will remain the only winter-safe link in the Northern corridor...


----------



## Gsus

ElviS77 said:


> https://www.nrk.no/buskerud/velger-ikke-bare-en-ny-stamvei-1.13436166


This is just sad! Really really sad! During oposition the current government parties criticized the old government for not prioritizing, and ever since they took over they`ve talked about first one prioritized route, then two. It`s really unbeliavebel that after two investigations by the road administration, that both recommend rv. 52, this is the outcome. Cause this is just what the government has said that should not be done! But it seems that when the personal meaning of the majority of one party is in contrast to the professional meaning, this is the result. hno:

The last couple of weeks has really been a downfall for the current government on a few large infrastructure projects, after the recent leakings from the new transport plan. The joint motorway/rail project on E16/Ringeriksbanen between Sandvika and Hønefoss is postponed by 2-3 years, with construction start in 2021/2022. E16/Bergensbanen between Stanghelle and Arna is also postponed from 2021 to 2023. From the beginning both of these two projects were to be prioritized for an as fast as possible start of construction. That`s why they chose an government zoning-plan to save time. Now we see how it goes with the political priorities. That large infrastructure projects is being delayed or postponed by political priorities is nothing new, but this time I really found it pathetic how both the prime minister and secretary of transport blamed the road- and rail administrations for the delay. Luckily the project-management on both these projects had balls enough to go out in media telling they were on time.


----------



## ElviS77

^^
It is rather difficult not to see this in light of the upcoming elections, I'm sorry to say. Not giving anything to rv 52 and/or E16 is handing a bunch of votes to the opposition - in particular the Centre Party - and not prioritizing rv 7 is giving up a similar bunch of Conservative votes. I'm no fan of the current government, but I did actually believe they would rise above petty regionalism in order to get a proper solution. Again, I was horribly wrong.


----------



## Ingenioren

I think it's a politics trick - we will see what projects are included in Ntp. But the way the decission was presented is that Rv52 is to be the main road for trucking/higher speeds and Rv7 for tourism suggests that one of them being the "real" priority.


----------



## Gsus

ChrisZwolle said:


> They don't seem to use the European tunnel categorization in Norway. The EU classifies its tunnels from A to E, with A being no restrictions and E most restrictive. Most tunnels in the EU are category B or C, prohibiting some kind of dangerous goods.
> 
> Though I understand that in Norway there aren't always viable alternative routes for dangerous goods available. Maybe that's why they haven't implemented it, it would restrict so many tunnels to the point they become obstacles to transportation instead of beneficial.


I`m not very into the correlation between the Norwegian and European tunnel classifications, but very often "EU-demands" is used as a reason for either expanding with a twin-bore of excisting tunnels, or at new buildings, where the traffic aint at a level of at least four lanes.

In Norway tunnels are classified from A-F, with A being average daily traffic of under 300. Class F is tunnels with an AADT of more than 50 000. Class E and F both requires two tubes. Class E is tunnels with at AADT of at least 8000-12 000, depending on the tunnels length.


----------



## Ingenioren

I share this since i tought it was well made, not a highway but a work-site delivery road:


----------



## Suburbanist

That is a lot of snow for just 1010m altitude.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Generally, in Norway: add 1500 meters to have similar things as in the Alps (tree line, snow cover, mountain views, etc.)


----------



## ChrisZwolle

*E134 Mælefjell Tunnel*

Breakthrough has been achieved today at the 9.4 kilometer long Mælefjell Tunnel, previously known as the Gvammen - Århus Tunnel. The tunnel will open to traffic in 2019.

The tunnel is located near Seljord in Telemark. It will shorten driving time along E134, though it may become superfluous if they are really going to build a new alignment of E134 north of the current route, which would turn the section via Seljord and Åmot into a local road.


----------



## OulaL

Suburbanist said:


> That is a lot of snow for just 1010m altitude.


Well, I live in Central Finland at an altitude of 100 m, and here everything was suddenly covered in snow just 4 days ago. (Although that quickly melted.)


----------



## Suburbanist

OulaL said:


> Well, I live in Central Finland at an altitude of 100 m, and here everything was suddenly covered in snow just 4 days ago. (Although that quickly melted.)


I need to reprogram my climatic references as I move to Norway in August. I know, at least, that Bergen has the mildest climate of the whole Norway (snow doesn't bother me much, though - short days are more of an angst).


----------



## OulaL

Suburbanist said:


> I need to reprogram my climatic references as I move to Norway in August. I know, at least, that Bergen has the mildest climate of the whole Norway (snow doesn't bother me much, though - short days are more of an angst).


Hope you don't mind rain 300 days a year.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

A truck has caught fire in the Oslofjord Tunnel this evening.


----------



## Kjello0

Hopefully this is the final nail in the coffin for the plans of building a second tube. A new bridge must come. The existing tunnel can be used as a waste disposal.


----------



## IceCheese

I thought they already decided on a new tunnel? Then they'll have to death traps instead of just one.


----------



## Kjello0

Actually they haven't. Statens Vegvesen now recommends a bridge. But the final decision is yet to come. However, in the new NTP they've only put up the money for a second tube. And states that if a bridge is chosen, the money for that won't be there until after 2029


----------



## ChrisZwolle

The Oslofjord Tunnel remains closed for at least the next 2-3 weeks. 500 meters of lighting has been destroyed by the fire and the need to resurface the pavement.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

ChrisZwolle said:


> Statens Vegvesen dismissed the plan by Nye Veier to use less frost insulation on E6 along MjÃ¸sa to cut cost. They say what will be cheaper to construct, will be more expensive to repair in the long run.
> 
> https://www.nrk.no/ho/vegdirektoratet-sier-nei-til-_billig-e6_-1.13489235


Organization of the public Norwegian road entities are a bit confusing. Most roads are still administered and maintained by Statens Vegvesen. Nye veier is a new entity established to execute larger projects to build longer stretches of roads in a cost/benefit optimal way. Basically, they have a range of longer projects which they themselves can prioritize between, somewhat detached from the annual government budgets. The road directorate (Veidirektoratet) is responsible for overseeing both what Statens vegvesen and Nye veier is doing.

Although I am no expert, I think the road directorate's argument in this particular case make a lot of sense, as there have been a few expensive blunders with regards to thin frost insulation in Norway. On the other hand, I would like to give Nye Veier a lot of credit that this new organization certainly seems to be having a fresh look on a lot of things. For instance, in my region, they have dramatically upgraded the ambitions on the part of E6 they are responsible for. Originally the new E6 for the most part only was planned for 90 km/h, with everything south of Støren and north of Stjørdal being 1+1. By also including the benefit of higher travel speed in the analysis, Nye Veier currently aims for 110 km/h and four lanes for most of the planned roads (more than 100 km)


----------



## devo

54°26′S 3°24′E;140002839 said:


> [...] Originally the new E6 for the most part only was planned for 90 km/h, with everything south of Støren and north of Stjørdal being 1+1. By also including the benefit of higher travel speed in the analysis, Nye Veier currently aims for 110 km/h and four lanes for most of the planned roads (more than 100 km)


Ok, so what does that mean exactly, that map isn't really clear about what parts will be four lane or not (except previously known parts, such as Ranheim–Værnes and Skjerdingstad–Støren which will be motorway). Are all the red parts planned as four lanes now? Korporalsbrua–Vindåsliene will still be 1+1 or 1+2 right?


----------



## Agent 006

devo said:


> Ok, so what does that mean exactly, that map isn't really clear about what parts will be four lane or not (except previously known parts, such as Ranheim–Værnes and Skjerdingstad–Støren which will be motorway). Are all the red parts planned as four lanes now? Korporalsbrua–Vindåsliene will still be 1+1 or 1+2 right?



Future standard and speed limits according to statements from Nye Veier:

E6 Kvithammer-Åsen - 4 lanes - 110 km/t.
E6 Ranheim-Værnes - 4 lanes - 110 km/t most likely, if not 90 km/t (90-100 km/t anyway at endpoints at Ranheim and Værnes).
E6 Melhus-Støren - 4 lanes - 100 km/t or 110 km/t.
E6 Støren-Ulsberg - Originally planned as 1+2 road and 90 km/t. Now they talk about a narrow 4-lane road (18,5 m) and 110 km/t between Ulsberg and Vindåsliene (Soknedal south). Vindåsliene-Støren will remain 1+2 and 90 km/t, or get 4 lanes and 90-100 km/t.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

Støren-Vindåsliene is problematic because, as anyone driving through the sometimes rather narrow and winding valley realizes, it would require a lot of tunnels to reach the geometry required for 110 km/h according to Norwegian norms. Further, Korporalbrua-Vindåsliene (in pink in the map) is not part of the Nye veier portfolio, but is a Statens veivesen project with imminent start-up to be constructed as 1+1/2 (and with geometry for 90 km/h). Perhaps feeling the heat of competition from Nye veier, even Statens veivesen are now talking about preparing this section for a possible extension to 2+2 (but not 110) later, though, if the continuation on both sides are 2+2 as well.


----------



## devo

In my opinion it would be better to secure a four lane motorway rather than securing a 110 km/h alignment. I'm more concerned with the narrow cross section (18,5 meters) than I'm concerned about the geometry, as long as they stick to radii according to the standards (90, 100, or 110 km/h). Additionally, they can't mess with the cross section for the tunnels, so between each segment (which could be many) they'd have to contract and expand from these 18,5 meters, something which also has a potential for messing up the curvature/geometry.


----------



## MattiG

54°26′S 3°24′E;140002839 said:


> Organization of the public Norwegian road entities are a bit confusing. Most roads are still administered and maintained by Statens Vegvesen. Nye veier is a new entity established to execute larger projects to build longer stretches of roads in a cost/benefit optimal way. Basically, they have a range of longer projects which they themselves can prioritize between, somewhat detached from the annual government budgets. The road directorate (Veidirektoratet) is responsible for overseeing both what Statens vegvesen and Nye veier is doing.


The mode of operation of Nye Veier seems to be different from the PPP model used elsewhere: The basic idea of the PPP model is that there is a strong incentive for the contractor to make a high-quality road. Failures to do so cause excessive cost at the use phase, and jeopardize the business case.

That logic does not seem to apply to NV: If its pocket gets exhausted at the use phase, the governments sends more money. Instead of implementing the incentive on the PPP model, NV is only kind of an instrument to bypass the slow and unpredictable annual state budgeting.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

^^
We do have PPPs in Norway as well, in E39 and E18 at the south coast and E39 in Trøndelag. Also the new RV 3 around Eleverum will be a PPP project (the 4 BNOK bid has deadline May 20th, btw.), and two additional OPS projects are under preparation.

Nye veier (NV) is not a PPP. It is a company, but fully owned by the national government. Like Statens veivesen (SVV), it will not only be responsible for constructing, but also for the maintenance of the 500+ kms of roads it currently is mandated to build. Hence, it has the same motivation (or lack of it) as any other public entity to do things as rational and efficient as possible. 

Normally I actually have the belief that most people, and engineers in particular, in the public sector tries to do the right thing, but it can of course be tempting for any leader sometimes to focus more on the next year result than 20 years ahead. That is indeed why we have a separate entity (Vegdirektoratet) to enforce the required quality and standards of our roads, regardless whether they are constructed by SVV or NV.

As you say, the advantage of NV is that it is able to plan much more in the long term than SVV, which is controlled annually in rather large detail by the politicians regarding what bits and pieces of the Norwegian road network it should focus on. Unfortunately, politicians tend to be lot more short-term than professional engineers as they always have to be reelected in a few years time. Delaying a region for some years to focus on another can cost votes, and hence they tend to spread the investiments all over the place. NV do not need to be reelected, and can hence build in a more rational way. It can focus at longer stretches of road at a time, which leads to more efficient road building and more consistent standards. With longer consistent stretches also the economic benefit becomes more apparent. NV also says they plan to have more longterm maintenance contracts, which would force the contractors to think more long-term as well (and hence resemble the PPPs in that aspect.) In principle all of this could also have been achieved within the old SVV structure, but it would be much easier to undo if not instutionalized. 




devo said:


> In my opinion it would be better to secure a four lane motorway rather than securing a 110 km/h alignment. I'm more concerned with the narrow cross section (18,5 meters) than I'm concerned about the geometry, as long as they stick to radii according to the standards (90, 100, or 110 km/h). Additionally, they can't mess with the cross section for the tunnels, so between each segment (which could be many) they'd have to contract and expand from these 18,5 meters, something which also has a potential for messing up the curvature/geometry.


I kind of disagree. It would of course be better to have full width motorway, but the NV proposal is still much better than the original 90 km/h 1+1. Why? Because geometry (and then I mean primarily alignment) is much harder to fix in the future than width. In Norwegian terrain, and in particular the specific terrain in question, you would have to rebuild a lot of the road in order to upgrade from 90 km/h alignment to 110 km/h, and hence waste much of the original investment. This we have already seen in eg E6 Trondheim-Stjørdal and E39 Klett-Orkanger, where in both cases Statens vegvesen has been unwilling to upgrade from 90 to 110 but rather stick to the old alignment in their proposals for 2+2, as a new alignment would cost too much according to them. This is despite the fact that the ADDT in particular in the former case is much higher than is required for a full motorway. Although the E6 decision now possibly will be rectified by NV, it would be much easier with an appropriate alignment in the first place.


----------



## Agent 006

Yes, alignment and speed limits are most important factors. Easier to upgrade later. AADT 6-12.000 requires 90 km/t 1+1, so 110 km/t 18,5 m would be a good solution at Ulsberg-Vindåsliene. If AADT exceeds 12-15.000, all motorways should be 23 m.


----------



## metasmurf

Speaking of E6 in Trøndelag, I found this cool drone video of the current stretch Åsen - Mære 






On this stretch they're planing to build E6 in a new alignment. AADT is 12-15 000 and they're saying it's going to be planned for 110km/h, so I guess that means 4-lanes? Anything else would make little sense since it's going to be in a new alignment, and traffic will probably increase due it being in a (for Norway) relatively densely populated area. The project page says the following: "Kommunedelplanen gir mulighet for 110 km/t og fire felt, men det er i neste planfase (reguleringsplan) at det tas stilling til hvordan vegen blir."

Either way it's going to be grade separated and the tunnels are going to have separate tubes. 

See project page for more info


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

Interesting, maybe SVV for once will try to push it a little, as the concept selection study (KVU) for some reason recommended 1+1 / 90 km/h.

According to the current norms, 110 km/h will require 4 lanes, 20 m width, and rather strict geometrical constraints. As has been already discussed, Nye Veier is challenging this, at least regarding the full width of roads with relatively low traffic. E6 Åsen - Mære however has higher traffic, and hence probably needs at least 20 m width anyway.

1+1 / 90 km/h would also be in breach of the norms when AADT> 12 000, btw.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Security camera footage of the Oslofjord Tunnel fire. The truck caught fire on the underside while driving. It then stopped. Within a few minutes the whole cabin is on fire, you can see how quickly the smoke spreads.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

*E16 Bergen - Voss*

The recommended alternative for the E16 and railroad upgrade east of Bergen, from Arna to Stanghelle. It is an approximately 28 kilometer segment of road that will be nearly entirely tunneled, it includes three tunnels between 9 and 10 kilometers long which very short 'open air' segments between them.

There will be a four lane tunnel from Arna to Trengereid (where Fv. 7 splits off) and then a two-lane tunnel from Trengereid to Stanghelle. Traffic will briefly enter daylight at Trengereid and Vaksdal.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

*Fylkesvei 714*

A new section of fylkesvei 714 will open to traffic on 29 May in Snillesdalen.

Fylkesvei 714 is quite a long county road, being the only outlet for the municipalities of Hitra and Snillfjord. As these municipalities lack a central town of significance, people have to travel long distances to the nearest somewhat larger town. Orkanger has a population of 7,800 and is the nearest town of any significance for villages on Hitra and Frøya, which may be as far as 140 kilometers away on narrow and curvy roads. Trondheim is another 50 kilometers further.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

10 billion NOK worth of fish was exported from Sør-Trøndelag county in 2015 (and a lot more in 2016). Most of that fish was exported using that highway, nicknamed the "Salmon road".


----------



## Turf

Guess this fits in this topic https://vimeo.com/218292050

E105 Bøkfjordbrua - montering


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

The giant project Rogfast was approved by the Norwegian parliament this week. Rogfast will link Stavanger and Haugesund in the southwest of Norway, It will be the longest (26.7 km) and deepest (almost 400 m) in the world, will have two tunes, and include a submarine grade separated interchange. 

This project is however only the start of the larger ambition of getting rid of all 7 ferries on E39 between Stavanger to Trondheim. Statens vegvesen published a video on Rogfast and ferry free E39. The voice over and pretty lame dialog is in Norwegian, but some of the graphics, in particular Rogfast, is pretty cool.


----------



## OulaL

^^ Did I get this right about this (possible) structure at 2'47" to 3'04": nothing is supporting the tube from below, just the air within? There are some cables that seemingly prevent it from surfacing, but not from sinking.

In other words: if there is a leak, the tube is not only filled with water, it also sinks?


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

Yes, some submerged tube tunnel concepts have additional pontoons on the surface, but in areas/sections with large wind and sea wave loads that is not a great idea. In such sections the tube should instead be deep enough to be unaffected by surface conditions (and ships), and only anchored to the sea bottom using tension legs. A major leak as you describe would however be catastrophic regardless, but the probability is very small. The effects of a collision between a Norwegian submarine sailing at 20 knots and the proposed tube tunnel of Bjørnefjorden (Haugesund - Bergen) have been investigated, and the conclusion was that the surface of the tube was barely scratched.
https://www.nrk.no/norge/rorbro-kan-bli-bygd-i-ubatenes-ovingsfjord-1.12879668 (Norwegian) 

After all, the walls are 80 cm thick, reinforced concrete. Elaborate risk assessments have also been performed for the pontoon type tunnel and surface ships. 
http://e24.no/bil/superbro-over-norges-dypeste-fjord-skal-taale-en-skipskollisjon/22941925

It seems like the submerged tube concept has been scrapped for Bjørnefjorden, but is still considered for Sulafjorden and Halsafjorden further north on the E39, as well as a number of other fjords and straights.


----------



## Ringtail1402

A question about old roads. Last September I discovered a really cool road in Finnmark, the Beskades Road. Apparently it is a fragment of the old Alta-Kautokeino road (Rv 93), going over a 500 m plateau instead of the current alignment through a narrow river canyon (which is admittedly no less spectacular). If I remember correctly the current road is built in the 1960s and the old one in 1930s, and before that there was a postal track for reindeer sledges. The old road stretch (Gargia to Suolovuopmi) is a 27 km long rough narrow gravel road, but fairly easy to drive. It's closed in winter of course. Very picturesque drive, above the treeline with mountain lakes, numerous reindeers, and Sami camps. I'm not sure about its official status but it is even filmed by Google Street View. It is barely advertised anywhere though, I just found it by accident on a topo map. I'm wondering are there any other old roads like that in North Norway? I know there are various old roads over the mountains in the south, like the one replaced by Lærdal Tunnel, but I couldn't find anything else like that in the north.


----------



## belerophon

54°26′S 3°24′E;140365038 said:


> Yes, some submerged tube tunnel concepts have additional pontoons on the surface, but in areas/sections with large wind and sea wave loads that is not a great idea. In such sections the tube should instead be deep enough to be unaffected by surface conditions (and ships), and only anchored to the sea bottom using tension legs. A major leak as you describe would however be catastrophic regardless, but the probability is very small. The effects of a collision between a Norwegian submarine sailing at 20 knots and the proposed tube tunnel of Bjørnefjorden (Haugesund - Bergen) have been investigated, and the conclusion was that the surface of the tube was barely scratched.
> https://www.nrk.no/norge/rorbro-kan-bli-bygd-i-ubatenes-ovingsfjord-1.12879668 (Norwegian)
> 
> After all, the walls are 80 cm thick, reinforced concrete. Elaborate risk assessments have also been performed for the pontoon type tunnel and surface ships.
> http://e24.no/bil/superbro-over-norges-dypeste-fjord-skal-taale-en-skipskollisjon/22941925
> 
> It seems like the submerged tube concept has been scrapped for Bjørnefjorden, but is still considered for Sulafjorden and Halsafjorden further north on the E39, as well as a number of other fjords and straights.


How do you build it? I guess you need Platfromships to out them in place and Pontons to hold them there until all are there. Than you might open the barriers between segments and fill them with air, i.e. pump the water out, after they are stabilised byy cables, the pontons can be removed.

That means the segments must be all ready and could be put in place in summer only. If it functions its great engineering.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

^^ I am not an expert, but probably there are multiple options here, and the best solution most likely will be project specific. However, I am pretty sure that it can be done. Also, the segments, or maybe even most of the tube, will be fabricated in sheltered waters and at the surface or even at land. The solution mentioned in this Norwegian article  from the Norwegian road services is to prefabricate sections of 200 meters that will be joined close to the sound to be crossed and then towed (and lowered) into place. In that case I would assume the chain must have a buoyancy higher than gravity during the whole process. In order to be able to lower the tunnel the net vertical force must be very close to neutral, whereas the buoyancy again should be slighty higher than gravity after the tube is finally anchored. In practice you would probably manipulate the weight (gravity) rather than the volume (buoyancy) eg by pumping water in and out of ballast tanks. Using Pontoons might not be necessary. Neither do I think this work will need to take place in summer only, but high winds and waves are probably undesirable when the whole tube is lowered into the sea, so probably that critical phase will take place during the summer months when the weather normally (but not always) is calmer. 

Needless to say, this would indeed not be engineering for the novice. Experience from both immersed tube projects and the Norwegian offshore experience should be used to an advantage. The largest structure ever moved by man is the 470 m talll Troll A platform in the North Sea, which was moved 200 km offshore from a sheltered fjord before lowered onto the sea floor (again by manipulating the weight). These condeep platforms are no longer constructed, as floating structures are much cheaper.


----------



## MattiG

Ringtail1402 said:


> A question about old roads. Last September I discovered a really cool road in Finnmark, the Beskades Road. Apparently it is a fragment of the old Alta-Kautokeino road (Rv 93), going over a 500 m plateau instead of the current alignment through a narrow river canyon (which is admittedly no less spectacular). If I remember correctly the current road is built in the 1960s and the old one in 1930s, and before that there was a postal track for reindeer sledges. The old road stretch (Gargia to Suolovuopmi) is a 27 km long rough narrow gravel road, but fairly easy to drive. It's closed in winter of course. Very picturesque drive, above the treeline with mountain lakes, numerous reindeers, and Sami camps. I'm not sure about its official status but it is even filmed by Google Street View. It is barely advertised anywhere though, I just found it by accident on a topo map. I'm wondering are there any other old roads like that in North Norway? I know there are various old roads over the mountains in the south, like the one replaced by Lærdal Tunnel, but I couldn't find anything else like that in the north.


I believe the Gargiavegen is quite unique. No other such long old but drive-able thru roads exists in the north.

At least the book "Med bil i Norge" (latest edition 1997 AFAIK) introduces the road. I have driven it once, about 25 years ago. In that time, the road was barely passable by our Fiat Uno.

The road is listed in the National Verneplan (road conservation plan). If you are interested in the Norwegian road history (in Norwegian Bokmål), please visit

http://www.vegvesen.no/***/Fokusomrader/Miljo+og+omgivelser/Nasjonal+verneplan/Objektene


----------



## Ringtail1402

MattiG said:


> I believe the Gargiavegen is quite unique. No other such long old but drive-able thru roads exists in the north.
> 
> At least the book "Med bil i Norge" (latest edition 1997 AFAIK) introduces the road. I have driven it once, about 25 years ago. In that time, the road was barely passable by our Fiat Uno.
> 
> The road is listed in the National Verneplan (road conservation plan). If you are interested in the Norwegian road history (in Norwegian Bokmål), please visit
> 
> http://www.vegvesen.no/***/Fokusomrader/Miljo+og+omgivelser/Nasjonal+verneplan/Objektene


Thank you! I wonder why they don't make this road a National Tourist Route. Although it seems all of these routes in Norway are at least paved.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

There are of course other "veteran" roads. Most of the roads built in the 30s are actually still in use in more or less the same alignment (but often paved). One of the most famous veteran roads of Norway is probably Rallarvegen, a 90 km road built in 1912 in connection with the Oslo - Bergen railway construction. Another example is the considerably older Vårstigen in Dovrefjell en route Trondheim - Oslo, first mentioned in written sources in 1182. Neither of these two are open (or passable) for car traffic, though.


----------



## MattiG

54°26′S 3°24′E;140568455 said:


> There are of course other "veteran" roads. Most of the roads built in the 30s are actually still in use in more or less the same alignment (but often paved). One of the most famous veteran roads of Norway is probably Rallarvegen, a 90 km road built in 1912 in connection with the Oslo - Bergen railway construction. Another example is the considerably older Vårstigen in Dovrefjell en route Trondheim - Oslo, first mentioned in written sources in 1182. Neither of these two are open (or passable) for car traffic, though.


Yes, there are. However, the original question asked if there are such roads in the North. Old fragments exist, but such 50 km long thru-roads not.

Something similar is the road to Hamningberg. The road itself is not abandoned, but the place is.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

The four lane E39 between Hove and Sandved (south of Stavanger) opens to traffic on 7 July.

http://www.vegvesen.no/om+statens+v...1891942?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter


----------



## Galro

54°26′S 3°24′E;140306899 said:


> This project is however only the start of the larger ambition of getting rid of all 7 ferries on E39 between Stavanger to Trondheim. Statens vegvesen published a video on Rogfast and ferry free E39. The voice over and pretty lame dialog is in Norwegian, but some of the graphics, in particular Rogfast, is pretty cool.


In English.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

Toll with "Nye veier" is similar to other projects. I.e, the tolls contribute with a partial coverage of the investment costs over a limited number of years.


----------



## LegendMeadow

Suburbanist said:


> Which mobile operator has better coverage in rural areas in Norway, from the experience for people who drive there often? Telenor? Chilimobil? Telia? ICE?


Hey, I live up in Steigen. I use Telia and I have 4G wherever I am, in the mountains, on the ocean, at home, anywhere. And in cities I get 4G+. So it's not bad at all in the rural areas. It's gotten a lot better over the years.

The people I know that have Telenor seems to have worse coverage overall, and more expensive data. So Telia all the way.


----------



## Galro

Some construction pictures of the Hundvåg surface part of the Ryfast project.


----------



## Galro

County road 159 through Tromsø will be widened to four lanes. The work is set to be finished by fall 2019.









https://www.vareveger.no/artikler/omfattende-vegutvidelse-i-tromso/398469


----------



## Galro

The Farris bridge and new E18 in Larvik.























































http://www.bygg.no/article/1321305?image=dp-image96494-1321316


----------



## ChrisZwolle

*E6 Soknedal*

A 993 million NOK contract was signed yesterday for the construction of the Soknedal bypass of E6, which is some 60 kilometers south of Trondheim. It includes a 3.6 kilometer tunnel. It is a 2/3 lane road with a speed limit of 90 km/h (80 km/h in tunnel). The tunnel is quite spacious with a 10.5 m profile. Construction will commence in September, the bypass will open in Fall 2020.


----------



## Galro

Loftesnesbrui on National Road 5 in Songdal.





































http://www.bygg.no/article/1321377?image=dp-image96506-1321383

Rendering:


----------



## Galro

Construction update of Tana Bru. They will start on the bridge tower in September.









http://www.bygg.no/article/1321372

Rendering:


----------



## Galro

New Varoddbrua on E-18 in Kristiansand. The caissons for the construction of the bridge pillars have been completed in the dry dock at Andøya, Kristiansand.



























http://www.bygg.no/article/1321599?image=dp-image96568-1321615

How the bridge will look when completed:


----------



## Suburbanist

The building company uses the same IKEA color scheme. Funny coincidence, only that they deliver much bigger objects to assemble :O

Are the toll exemption rules for electric cars nationally uniform?


----------



## Galro

Suburbanist said:


> The building company uses the same IKEA color scheme. Funny coincidence, only that they deliver much bigger objects to assemble :O
> 
> Are the toll exemption rules for electric cars nationally uniform?


It's now up to local municipalities and road owners whether they want to give toll exemptions to electric cars or not, but they are not allowed to have a price higher than half the ones of fossil fueled cars. I do not believe there are any places that introduced tolls for electric cars yet but Oslo will introduce tolls for them starting in 2019.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Bergen will also introduce tolls for electric cars once their share rises over 20%, which they expect to happen by 2019 or so.


----------



## Ingenioren

Moss - Horten already 50% off for electric


----------



## Suburbanist

E39 in Bergen, between Eidsvåg and Fløyfjells tunnels.









.









It is my first day with significant sunlight here  (pics by myself)


----------



## Suburbanist

Do they have mobility 4-wheel vehicles here in Norway? I mean: ~50km/h maximum speed electric vehicles meant to help people with mobility issues to go around, without having to rely on a full-blown automobile requiring a license, using bike paths and local streets only?


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

Ingenioren said:


> Moss - Horten already 50% off for electric


But there is no road toll on that ferry, right? On Flakk-Rørvik (Trondheim-Fosen), electric cars have to pay the full ferry fare (152 NOK for <6 m vehicles), but do not have to pay the rather high road tolls of the Fosen road package (92 NOK). If you prepay multiple travels the costs are reduced by 50 %. Another interesting aspect of that ferry connection is that the fare and toll are paid using autopass (electronic tolling). Hence, passengers and bikes can take the ferry free of charge. For commuters it is hence quite popular to have a car on each shore.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

Suburbanist said:


> Do they have mobility 4-wheel vehicles here in Norway? I mean: ~50km/h maximum speed electric vehicles meant to help people with mobility issues to go around, without having to rely on a full-blown automobile requiring a license, using bike paths and local streets only?


Do you mean like this?









I think the speedlimit in order to be classified as a wheel chair is 10 km/h. ATVs with higher speed (or that is heavier) would require driver licences, but not necessarily car. See SVV for details: https://www.vegvesen.no/en/driving+licences/About+Driving+licences/What+am+I+entitled+to+drive

50 km/h is imo quite (too) fast on bike paths and local streets.


----------



## ElviS77

^^

https://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mopedbil

We have these things, of course, but they do require a licence.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

^^
I do not think these are particularly meant for people with mobility issues, they are not allowed on bike paths, and, as far as I have experienced, not commonplace in Norway, but mostly found in remote smaller communities places / islands without proper roads, the Buddy electric vehicle being an exception.


----------



## ElviS77

True, they are not particularly common, and they are in most senses including legal ones more "car" than "moped"... which begs the question who would want to use them at all..? Still, some do, although rarely in anything resembling a safe manner...


----------



## Rob73

I see an older gent everyday on a contraption like the Hepro, he uses it on the cycle paths and side walks.


----------



## 8166UY

A few weeks ago there was in the news that people in the Netherlands also start using them without anything (physically  ) wrong with them. Here they are called Brommobiel and are indeed for the disabled and require at least a moped license to drive (car one will do also). Most cities ban mopeds to the road (as they are unsafe and polluting for cyclists), so these too. This is what they look like here:


----------



## ElviS77

https://www.nrk.no/ho/vegvesenet-gikk-tom-for-penger-_-16-kilometer-vei-star-uferdig-1.13632064

This summer I did a 6500 km road trip through Sweden, Finland and Norway - up to Kirkenes, zigzaging through Northern Norway and back to Oslo again. There were many road-related experiences, of course, some obvious and well-known - Norwegian roads are worse than Swedish and Finnish is a dead giveaway... - but why are we completely unable to pave our roads the way they do? It shouldn't be more difficult to do so across the border. Parts of the E6 through Finnmark is worse than secondary roads in Sweden and Finland, and our secondary network is often borderline insane (compare 10 kms of Norwegian rv 92 to 120 km of its Finnish counterpart either side of the border at Neiden, for instance. The Finnish part isn't great, but compared to the Norwegian it's a continental motorway...).

There are many reasons for this, of course, some are again well-known, others more obscure. What is certain is that developing Norwegian infrastructure is a challenge for any government.... The link above (in Norwegian...) is perhaps the silliest expression of how things go badly wrong up here. It's not a massive project, just widening and straightening the important rv 3 for about 16 kms in Østerdalen. The alignment has not been changed, and similar projects have been completed along rv 3 over the past few years. This time around, however, money ran out, and they were unable to finish. Thus, 
they basically had to repave something resembling the old alignment at the same, narrow width and put up temporary guardrails - inside the widened structure - after about two years of road works... Completion is now not expected until some time next year at the earliest. It's clearly going to be considerably more expensive, and even though the project isn't that costly, this is money wasted.

Similar issues are very common, many projects big and small are still left unfinished, many are postponed for years or even decades. In addition, many improved sections (and sections under Construction or at advanced planning stages) are found between seriously substandard ones which aren't expected to be replaced anytime the next decade or two, and it's very often difficult to understand priorities. I absolutely understand that money is finite, but it's fairly obvious that systematic progress is preferable to and cheaper than the current approach. Political parties all across the political spectrum claim they have the solution - or at least that the other guys have the wrong one, particularly in an election year... - but still...


----------



## italystf

^^ Norway is much more mountaniuous and full of fjords and islands than Sweden and Finland, and that makes road construction and maintenance much more challenging and expensive.


----------



## ElviS77

^^

I know, I'm Norwegian... There are many other reasons as well, but they don't apply to repaving already existing roads! That just annoys me. And, more importantly, the way we do things here doesn't help things much, and it leads to problems even in Østerdalen and Finnmark, areas with a geography which fairly closely resembles that of Sweden and Finland.


----------



## MattiG

ElviS77 said:


> https://www.nrk.no/ho/vegvesenet-gikk-tom-for-penger-_-16-kilometer-vei-star-uferdig-1.13632064
> 
> Parts of the E6 through Finnmark is worse than secondary roads in Sweden and Finland, and our secondary network is often borderline insane (compare 10 kms of Norwegian rv 92 to 120 km of its Finnish counterpart either side of the border at Neiden, for instance. The Finnish part isn't great, but compared to the Norwegian it's a continental motorway...).


I am sorry to point a detail: The Norwegian rv92 meets Finland in Karigasniemi, not in Neiden. The road to Neiden is rv893. I presume you are referring to the latter one.

Anyway, the Finnish road 971 at the other side of the border was not a high-priority road to build either. It was complete in 1969 up to Sevettijärvi, which is the only permanently populated village on the road, and it was extended in pieces to the border in the 1970's. Initially, it was built as a "path" (a low-class narrow road of limited maintenance and without traffic signs), but it was made a "road" later. The current shape as a better road dates back to 1993 when the road was upgraded to a decent transport corridor to the Kirkenes area.

Before the road was built, people, mail, and goods were transported by vehicles like this: 










It might interesting to know that Finlands was earlier reluctant to build roads to the eastern border for defence reasons. The road 92 over Karigasniemi was for decades the only road from the NE Finland to Norway. The Neiden road was complete in late 1970's, the current 970 to Nuorgam/Polmak in 1971, and the Sami Bridge in Utsjoki on 4/E75 no earlier than in 1993.


----------



## MattiG

italystf said:


> ^^ Norway is much more mountaniuous and full of fjords and islands than Sweden and Finland, and that makes road construction and maintenance much more challenging and expensive.


Not in every part of the country. But even in the SE areas resembling Sweden and Finland, most roads seem to have been built windy and narrow. Something like what Finland built during the years of post-war main upgrade in 1950's and 1960's.

E16: https://www.google.fi/maps/@60.1811...4!1sWzrSqv6PlVcY1hypxXH-BQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656


----------



## ChrisZwolle

That road was not planned as an E-route, E16 was only extended east into Sweden in 2012. I drove that road from Kongsvinger to Torsby in 2014, they were upgrading quite some sections of it. Traffic volumes are low though, only 1,200 vehicles per day near Kongsvinger, dropping to 700 vehicles per day near the Swedish border. 

The rocky terrain also makes upgrades not as easy as the non-mountainous terrain suggests. It's not like Spain where they can build a wide straight road for 1,000 vehicles per day at a cost of under € 1 million/km.


----------



## MattiG

ChrisZwolle said:


> That road was not planned as an E-route, E16 was only extended east into Sweden in 2012. I drove that road from Kongsvinger to Torsby in 2014, they were upgrading quite some sections of it. Traffic volumes are low though, only 1,200 vehicles per day near Kongsvinger, dropping to 700 vehicles per day near the Swedish border.
> 
> The rocky terrain also makes upgrades not as easy as the non-mountainous terrain suggests. It's not like Spain where they can build a wide straight road for 1,000 vehicles per day at a cost of under € 1 million/km.


Anyway, Norway assigned it to an E road, thus qualifying it as a main road. It is an example only. Other main roads are similar.

The countries to compare were Sweden and Finland, not Spain.


----------



## Suburbanist

Does Sweden have fjords and rugged mountains?


----------



## MattiG

Suburbanist said:


> Does Sweden have fjords and rugged mountains?


There a few fjord-type bays at the shore of Kattegat, and Sweden shares the Scandinavian mountain range with Norway. Why?


----------



## Uppsala

MattiG said:


> Anyway, Norway assigned it to an E road, thus qualifying it as a main road. It is an example only. Other main roads are similar.
> 
> The countries to compare were Sweden and Finland, not Spain.


You can not compare Norway with Sweden, its totally different. If You must compare Norway with something its better to compare with Switzerland, Austria and maybe also Slovenia. That countries are more similar to Norway.


----------



## Uppsala

Suburbanist said:


> Does Sweden have fjords and rugged mountains?



No


----------



## MattiG

Uppsala said:


> You can not compare Norway with Sweden, its totally different. If You must compare Norway with something its better to compare with Switzerland, Austria and maybe also Slovenia. That countries are more similar to Norway.


Please walk the discussion backwards and find out that the scope of the discussion is the SE part of Norway being quite similar to the large areas in Sweden and Finland.


----------



## Uppsala

MattiG said:


> Please walk the discussion backwards and find out that the scope of the discussion is the SE part of Norway being quite similar to the large areas in Sweden and Finland.



No, i dont think that part of Norway is. I still say that part also look more like Austria. And the more flat parts look maybe more like Slovenia.

Norway is special, and thay is the beauty with Norway.


----------



## ElviS77

MattiG said:


> The Norwegian rv92 meets Finland in Karigasniemi, not in Neiden. The road to Neiden is rv893. I presume you are referring to the latter one.
> 
> Anyway, the Finnish road 971 at the other side of the border was not a high-priority road to build either.


I thought so, too, as all sources (my maps, Google etc.) said exactly what you're saying, but driving there, it turned out that both the Norwegian 893 and the Finnish 971 had been renumbered...


----------



## MattiG

ElviS77 said:


> I thought so, too, as all sources (my maps, Google etc.) said exactly what you're saying, but driving there, it turned out that both the Norwegian 893 and the Finnish 971 had been renumbered...


Interesting to know. The change is nor widely advertized in Finland. One source says the date of change was Dec 7th, 2016. 

That means that the Norwegian Rv92 has a gap of almost 200 kilometers. In addition, the road 92 is the only main road in Finland to run from a border crossing place to another one.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

I found this source:

Nykyisin tämän historiallisen väylän korvaa kantatie 92 Kaamanen – Näätämö. Tie ”rakennettiin” alun perin polkutienä 1940-luvun loppupuolella ja sitä on jatkossa parannettu seututieksi 1980 luvun puolivälissä. Tie muutettiin kantatieksi 7.12.2016.​
https://lapintiestonvuosisata.com/2017/05/04/isannan-erikoinen-harrastus-inarijarvella/

The Norwegian vegkart is also updated with riksvei 92 to Neiden. https://www.vegvesen.no/vegkart/vegkart/#kartlag:geodata/@1044903,7793819,9


----------



## Galro

Construction update of Saggrenda bridge at E134 in Kongsberg.






































https://www.vareveger.no/artikler/imponerende-bru-portal-til-sagrenda/404279


----------



## Suburbanist

When will they start building the tunnels on Rv556 in Bergen from Dolvik to the airport area, to connect with the other 2 already in place?


----------



## Suburbanist

Is it true the government is promising to use more of the Oil Fund to finance infrastructure (at the other end of PPP's, in a competitive manner)?


----------



## SeanT

There must be some sum of oil money. It is like every norwegian citizen has 1.5 million NOK in the bank:lol:


----------



## MattiG

54°26′S 3°24′E;142290339 said:


> The most problematic sections on Rv3 with regards to traffic flow, the Elverum area and the climb towards the highest point at Lonåsen (Tynset) will both soon be bypassed, on the former construction is starting as we speak. The remaining speed restrictions (which seems to be ignored by most trucks anyway) are not close to outweighing the about 40 km longer distance, and probably as important, 300 m larger climb, of E6. Both differences are about to increase somewhat with the aforementioned improvements of Rv3, btw. In addition, Rv3 is not as weather exposed as E6.


How much population does the E6 reach compared to Rv3?


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

Suburbanist said:


> Is it true the government is promising to use more of the Oil Fund to finance infrastructure (at the other end of PPP's, in a competitive manner)?





SeanT said:


> There must be some sum of oil money. It is like every norwegian citizen has 1.5 million NOK in the bank:lol:


The use of money from the investment fund from oil income is limited irrespective of governments and for several reasons, eg to save money for a rainy day, but also to avoid the "Dutch disease", i.e. uncontrolled inflation. Officially, the government limit itself to take out maximum 3 % of the current 7.8 trillion NOK from the fund (836 billion euro) annually. Before 2017 the limit was in fact 4 % (irrespective of government). In practice, oil income corresponding to about 2.8 % of the fund was used on average in the 2012-2016 period, even if the economy had to be stimulated somewhat due to the drop in oil prices. In absolute terms, the use of oil money has increased lately, though, since the size of the fund has increased substantially.
https://www.nbim.no/en/the-fund/market-value/




MattiG said:


> How much population does the E6 reach compared to Rv3?


I think you need to define what you mean here. If you mean "the number of people having the fastest way to Oslo", you can very roughly estimate that for the northern half of Oppland and the whole of Møre og Romsdal counties, E6 would be the fastest route, in total about 360 k people. For Rv 3, you might include Trøndelag and Nordland, in total about 700 k people. This estimate ignores people in northern Sogn & Fjordane, who probably will use E6, and the people in northernmost Møre og Romsdal, and perhaps also southern Troms, who may or may not use Rv 3 or Sweden.

However, the Gudbrandsdalen where E6 is running through is more densely populated than Østerdalen where Rv 3 is going, making the local traffic heavier on the southern (but not northern) part of E6 than the Rv 3 running in parallel.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

54°26′S 3°24′E;142300403 said:


> However, the Gudbrandsdalen where E6 is running through is more densely populated than Østerdalen where Rv 3 is going, making the local traffic heavier on the southern (but not northern) part of E6 than the Rv 3 running in parallel.


This, plus the branch routes to the northwest, is the reason why E6 gets priority over Rv. 3 I think.

I believe there are only two or three villages with a population over 2,000 in Østerdalen north of Elverum, with little traffic using it from other regions except for Trondheim.

Along E6 you have regional centers and sizable towns like Moelv, Lillehammer, Ringebu, Vinstra, Otta, Dombås and Oppdal, in addition to branch routes to the northwest coast like Rv. 15, E136 and Rv. 70.


----------



## Suburbanist

In other words... Norwegian cities are have bad locations for a modern ground transportation network :shifty:


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

Well, yeah, none of the four largest cities of Norway are yet connected to each other by motorways....

It is perhaps a bit simplified to say that E6 is prioritized over Rv3. True, there is a big Nye Veier project extending the E6 motorway to Lillehammer, but further north the recent transport plan for the next 12 years was in fact quite disappointing, and between Otta and Ulsberg (where Rv3 and E6 meet), I am not aware of any major projects. On the other hand, the gradual improvement on Rv3 north of Elverum is planned to be continued over the next decade. Note that Lillehammer is approximately the same distance from Trondheim as Elverum. 








(map of the Norwegian 2018—2029 road projects of the national transport plan, excluding Nye Veier projects.) 









(Nye veier projects) 

Personally, although I would prefer a large scale development of a motorway network, the current strategy which seems to be focusing on E6 Kolomoen-Lillehammer, Rv3 Kolomoen-Elverum, and E6 Ulsberg - Trondheim ( - Steinkjer) with regards to motorway developments, is probably more politically acceptable. Once these are completed, closing the remaining gaps will appear more realistic.

Ulsberg and Kolomoen are the northern and southern, respectively, termini of Rv3 where the route joins E6.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

*Joberg Tunnel*

The 2044 meter long Joberg Tunnel on Riksvei 13 between Granvin and Voss opened to traffic today. The tunnel was built to protect the road from rockslides and avalanches.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

I have mentioned the "Bedre Veier" (better roads) (www.bedrevei.no) organization a couple of times before. What I did not realize is that they actually made a complete road plan report (in Norwegian) earlier this year, with standard specifications, costs, benefits, environmental impact, urban transport, and rather detailed routes. In short, this organization seems surprisingly professional, with most of the people in the board being experienced professionals in the field. Hopefully, their visions will inspire the politicians even more ahead as the climate argument against roads is fading with the accelerating electrification of auto transportation ahead.


----------



## italystf

^^ Apart the fact that such a plan would be extremely unrealistic, does it say that motorway width will be from 17.5 to 21.5 meters??? That's extremely narrow. For example in Italy the MINIMUM width for motorways is 25 m, while for expressways is 22 m. Motorways that narrow had been built in mountanious areas in the 1960s and 1970s, but not anymore.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

It's doable if you reduce the shoulder to just a strip. I think this is a 21.5 m motorway (E6 along Mjøsa):


E6-67 by European Roads, on Flickr


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

^^ If I am not mistaken, that road is following the H8 standard , which in fact is only 20 m wide. The narrow width is permissible due to the relative low traffic volumes compared with continental motorways. Actually, Nye Veier, which builds motorways for the Norwegian government, is currently proposing 18.8 m for motorways with relatively light traffic. The advantage of building narrow motorways is that, for the most part, widening them later is possible if the traffic picks up. Realign a road with poor curvature is much more expensive. Note also that the motorway speed limit in Norway is only 110.

The Bedre Veier H3 has the following profile:
1—3.25—3.25—0.75—2—0.75—3.25—3.25—1
whereas the H4 has the following profile:
2—3.5—3.5—0.75—2—0.75—3.5—3.5—2

It has actually been built (much criticized) expressways with 16 m width in Norway, so everything is relative. 

We are currently seeing the start of a revolution within individual travel (automation and electrification). Who knows which ramifications this will have for future road designs?


----------



## Agent 006

Actually, in new SVV N100 proposal (road design manuals) all motorways AADT > 12.000 must be 23 m (21 m if difficult terrain and AADT < 20.000). Nye Veier might be allowed to build 18.8 m if AADT 6000-12.000, though.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

That is exactly what Nye Veier is hoping, to have a new 18.8 m standard for 110 km/h at 6000—12000 AADT. They are also proposing 21.5 m above 12 000. In both cases the crash barrier will set some distance away from the edge of the asphalt such that there is room for emergency stops. 

Both adjustments will improve the socioeconomic benefits of their portfolio, they claim. See their reply to the N100 proposal below. 
http://www.nyeveier.no/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Nye-Veier-N100.pdf


----------



## Kjello0

54°26′S 3°24′E;142373654 said:


> I have mentioned the "Bedre Veier" (better roads) (www.bedrevei.no) organization a couple of times before. What I did not realize is that they actually made a complete road plan report (in Norwegian) earlier this year, with standard specifications, costs, benefits, environmental impact, urban transport, and rather detailed routes. In short, this organization seems surprisingly professional, with most of the people in the board being experienced professionals in the field. Hopefully, their visions will inspire the politicians even more ahead as the climate argument against roads is fading with the accelerating electrification of auto transportation ahead.


Damn! I read Nye Veier, and had the most wonderful time thinking a government led organization could have visions. Especially the part about having a motorway up Østerdalen. Then I started reading the document and found it strange that Nye Veier had listened that much to Bedre Veier. Just to realize it was Bedre Veier all the time. :bash:

I agree a lot with them. But have some minor changes in my own network. The biggest one being a more direct route between Oslo and Stavanger.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

I guess Nye Veier will be happy to oblige if the government ask them to build the Bedre Veier plan ;-)


----------



## OulaL

I remember seeing this map here earlier, and still have a certain degree of skepticism about it, especially the northernmost parts.

Like separated carriageways on E6 all the way until Skibotn? A completely new road between Alta and Lakselv? A redesignated (assumingly all-year) main road through Ifjord instead of Tana valley?


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

That is a long road.... They estimate that the total cost to realize their plan is 1.15 trillion NOK. Of this, 145 billion goes to E6 north of Steinkjer (1256 km). However, politically, in order to pull off something like this in Norway you need to throw some bones also to Northern Norway.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

*E18 Larvik*

The new Larvik Tunnel of E18 in Larvik is planned to open on 28 September. The sign says 2.8 km but Google Earth imagery suggests it's no more than 2.5 km even with a curve in mind.


----------



## ElviS77

The Bedre Veier map is, of course, just a flight of fancy. Not mainly because of the absurd investments such projects would require, and the environmental impact that many new motorways/expressways would have, but because traffic never would warrant it. A few spot checks: E6 - Ballangen (south of Narvik) 1984, Trofors (south of Mosjøen) 1203, Snåsavatnet (north of Steinkjer) 3010, Dombås south 4122; E39 - Orkanger west 3700, south of Førde airport 2950, Eikefet tunnel 2500; Rv 52 Hemsedalsfjellet 1300; Rv 3 Koppang 2600; Rv 5 Sogndal north 2450; E134 Haukeli 1600... And so on and so forth (source: https://www.vegvesen.no/vegkart/). I'm all in favour of improving Norwegian roads considerably, but this reminds me of my map-drawing efforts in old NAF Veibøker when I was about ten. 

Of course, some of these proposals will become reality given time, others are a question of political will, but the whole grid..? Please... As a side-note, one of the least unrealistic of the high-flying propositions is shortening the E6 through Finnmark, as the Arctic may open more with climate changes. In addition, it would not be exceptionally expensive to build roughly 100 kms of road through flat terrain. Environmental concerns are a different matter, though.


----------



## Rob73

54°26′S 3°24′E;142521907 said:


> My main point, which was perhaps not very clearly conveyed, was that at least the US road network was not built with only capacity in mind, but also to tie the country together with a high speed road network for both cars and trucks. Portions of this network (in the north and west in particular) still have very light traffic compared with what can be expected on the four lane sections of "Bedre Veier".


The US interstate network was built for the rapid movement of troops and war materials around the country, hence the official name Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and *Defense* Highways. The fact that it made personal transport between cities easier was a nice byproduct.


----------



## sotonsi

It was also about interstate commerce, and improving transport across the nation, hence Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of *Interstate* and Defense Highways.

That said, almost all of the really quiet routes are linking well populated areas that are a long way apart. Trondheim and Bergen are not well populated enough to justify hundreds of kilometres of new road to create a high speed road connection to Oslo (and thus the rest of Europe). eg I-80 from Salt Lake City to Reno is a long empty stretch, but it's the link from the Chicago area to Northern California - there's millions of people at either end.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

Rob73 said:


> Air travel hassles Norway??? All those words in the same sentence?? I don't know if you do much air travel outside of Norway but air travel inside Norway is about as seamless and trouble free as air travel can be, it doesn't get any better than Norway. For example I can leave home in Molde at 6.00, be on the 6.50 flight to Oslo and be at my company's head office before 9.00.
> 
> Car or rail will never be able to beat that or be as cheap.
> 
> The only hassle in Norway is Norwegians inability to understand the concept of PRIORITY BOARDING!!!


Molde has a small airport (no pun intended), but it is also my experience that three hours is the shortest door to door travel you can hope for, but only late at night. If traveling at busier times, or if ground transportation in either end is slightly more complicated, you often end up with a slightly longer travel time, comparable to the 3.5 to 4 hours car travel that might be expected between the Norwegian cities if there were motorways between them, not taking into account additional time caused by schedule inflexibility in air travel (which I assume is more of a problem for Molde - Oslo than on the bigger routes) 

I am not saying that all domestic business air travel will evaporate if we had motorways, but I am sure a sizable portion will prefer the personal space, flexibility, and point to point travel offered by car travel. Others may relax better using eg bus, which also go into the city centers and is better than air for in-between destinations. A few decades ahead, autonomous cars will offer the perfect combination of these two options. Basically you could have your own traveling office.... 

BTW, IMO priority boarding is idiotic and only delay flights. Who wants to be in that cramped space longer than necessary? I am always among the last to board. Priority security, on the other hand, is great, and has saved me a lot of time. 


sotonsi said:


> It was also about interstate commerce, and improving transport across the nation, hence Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of *Interstate* and Defense Highways.
> 
> That said, almost all of the really quiet routes are linking well populated areas that are a long way apart. Trondheim and Bergen are not well populated enough to justify hundreds of kilometres of new road to create a high speed road connection to Oslo (and thus the rest of Europe). eg I-80 from Salt Lake City to Reno is a long empty stretch, but it's the link from the Chicago area to Northern California - there's millions of people at either end.


I would argue that this is similar to the southern Norwegian case, though. The population centers may not be as big, but the desolate distances are also orders of magnitude shorter. Also in Norway freight is an important reason to improve the roads. 

BTW, while most of the even-numbered east-western interstates connect great population centers (even I-94 could be said to connect Minneapolis with the west, although I-90 is an alternative) , this is often not the case with the odd-numbered interstates going towards the Canadian border, eg I-15, I-29, and I-95.


----------



## Rob73

^^ If you remove the 4 main airports (OSL, BGO, SVG, TRD) all the other airports in Norway are pretty similar to Molde, the experience I have will be replicated all over the country. 

That said I completely support the upgrading of Norway’s motorways. Using Molde as an example the road from Molde to the E6 is abysmal, there's a Langfjord that needs to be crossed and the road from Andalsness to Dombas is substandard. It really pisses me off when billions can be found to link up a number of small islands to Ålesund with a tiny permanent population when a major crossing like Sølsnes-Åfarnes is still a decade or longer away from a fixed link.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Starting 1 October, the westbound E18 from Lysaker to Sandvika (west of Oslo) will be reduced to two lanes as the third lane becomes a bus lane.

https://www.vegvesen.no/Europaveg/e...llektivfelt-pa-e18-mellom-lysaker-og-sandvika

Why is this so necessary to become a free-flow bus lane? There is a railroad corridor right next to it. Will electric cars be allowed on it? That would increase usage of the bus lane and reduce traffic on the two remaining general purpose lanes. 

E18 carries 90,000 vehicles per day on this section which is very high for only four lanes. This will likely increase traffic congestion on the west side of Oslo. It's a futile hope that people would shift to public transit by changing a general purpose lane into a bus lane.


----------



## Galro

ChrisZwolle said:


> Will electric cars be allowed on it?


Yes, but they will need two more people in the car to use it during the rush hour.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

So it's an E-HOV lane


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

Strangling the traffic is the tactic all over urban Norway. Even some infrastructure funding is tied to reduction in car traffic. The tactics does lead to somewhat less driven kms in the cities, but I doubt the environmental impact is that positive as traffic jams have a high emission level per (fossile) car.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

*E16 Filefjell*

They have upgraded a 20 kilometer section of E16 across Filefjell, including the 5.8 kilometer long Filefjell Tunnel. The upgraded section will officially open to traffic tomorrow.

NRK made a timelapse video: https://www.nrk.no/ho/_kjor_-nye-e16-over-filefjell-1.13710538

It's a huge improvement over the old road which was narrow with no center line in many places. The new road has wide lanes, hardened shoulders and gentle curves.


----------



## OulaL

Galro said:


> Yes, but they will need two more people in the car to use it during the rush hour.


Isn't it allowed to any vehicle with two or more people, regardless of the power source?


----------



## Rob73

ChrisZwolle said:


> They have upgraded a 20 kilometer section of E16 across Filefjell, including the 5.8 kilometer long Filefjell Tunnel. The upgraded section will officially open to traffic tomorrow.
> 
> NRK made a timelapse video: https://www.nrk.no/ho/_kjor_-nye-e16-over-filefjell-1.13710538
> 
> It's a huge improvement over the old road which was narrow with no center line in many places. The new road has wide lanes, hardened shoulders and gentle curves.



And not a single passing lane along the entire 20km length plus single tube tunnels. Both are fails in my opinion!


----------



## ChrisZwolle

The AADT is under 1000 vehicles per day.


----------



## pedrofil

ChrisZwolle said:


> They have upgraded a 20 kilometer section of E16 across Filefjell, including the 5.8 kilometer long Filefjell Tunnel. The upgraded section will officially open to traffic tomorrow.
> 
> NRK made a timelapse video: https://www.nrk.no/ho/_kjor_-nye-e16-over-filefjell-1.13710538
> 
> It's a huge improvement over the old road which was narrow with no center line in many places. The new road has wide lanes, hardened shoulders and gentle curves.


A very pleasing and scenic drive. A good and safe alternative for winter passing. Now, I hope they can't start improving the much better alternative for Oslo - Bergen: Hemsedal.


----------



## Galro

OulaL said:


> Isn't it allowed to any vehicle with two or more people, regardless of the of the power source?


No, only electric cars.


----------



## Galro

E 105 Hesseng - Storskog in Finnmark at Russia boarder opened today. It was shown a few pages back, but here are some more pictures.




































https://www.vareveger.no/artikler/apner-i-dag-stal-med-stil-i-grenseland/408566


----------



## Heico-M

Rob73 said:


> And not a single passing lane along the entire 20km length plus single tube tunnels. Both are fails in my opinion!


At least they haven't built a 20 km long 1+1 road with a middle barrier :lol:


----------



## OulaL

Galro said:


> No, only electric cars.


I see.

I'd say the biggest problem with private cars in densely built areas is that they take space. Though pollution is an important factor as well, its importance diminishes as engine technology improves, but meanwhile the size of the cars pretty much stays the same. (And of course the safety distances stay the same, as they depend on the speed and not the size of the car anyway.)

So I thought it would have been locigal to encourage ride sharing altogether.


----------



## Galro

^^ Keep in mind that the default is that electric cars should be allowed to use bus lanes in Norway. The rules that they need two or more person in the car during rush hour represent a restriction of the default state and it is there to reduce the number of cars in the bus lanes, not to encourage ride sharing as such.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

^^ Some bus lanes become overwhelmed with electric cars, making it a de-facto third lane for general traffic use.

The lane on the left is a bus lane:


----------



## ChrisZwolle

The new Fylkesvei 456 tunnel in Kristiansand flooded after excessive rainfall. The tunnel opened in 2014.


----------



## Galro

^^ Fosskolltunnelen outside of Drammen is a triple-tube tunnel. I can't think of any others right now though.


----------



## MattiG

54°26′S 3°24′E;142808166 said:


> There are more than 22 000 bridges, with a total length of 893 km. Most of these bridges are in other words rather short. With regards to classification of these, it was a mess in "vegkart", but it seems like at least 83 were suspension bridges. Typically these may expected to be among the longer bridges, of course.


As the link tells, many of the suspension bridges are more than 25 years old. Nowadays, some of those would probably be constructed as cable-stayed bridges instead. 

The possibilities to analyze and model the dynamic forces have improved susbtantially during the last few decades. This has increased the popularity of cable-stayed bridges over suspension ones. In 1960's, the economical limit of a c-s bridge was about 250 meters of the main span width. Nowadays, the longest such bridges have a main span exceeding 1000 meters. Longer spans are an exclusive domain of suspension bridges.

A suspension bridge is quite an expensive construction. In addition, the deck of a suspension bridge is usually flexible, therefore being subject to steel fatigue in the long run. The flexibility has another implication, too: A suspension bridge seldom is suitable for a railroad. Trains are heavy and their dynamic loads are difficult to manage. This design point is well visible e.g. on the E20: The Öresundsbron between Sweden and Denmark is a cable-stayed combo bridge for cars and trains. Its main span is 490 meters. The Storebælt east bridge connecting the Danish islands has the main span of 1624 meters. It is a suspension bridge for road traffic only: The railway runs in a submarine tunnel.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

A suspension bridge achieves longer spans relative to tower height. 

For example, the Russky Bridge (a cable-stayed bridge with an 1104 m span) has 321 meter high towers. The Minami Bisan-Seto Bridge (a suspension bridge with an 1100 m span) has 194 meter high towers.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

Galro said:


> ^^ Fosskolltunnelen outside of Drammen is a triple-tube tunnel. I can't think of any others right now though.


There is apperently one more (127 m long) in Stavanger (Hillesvågsveien), although this a covered road and not a rock tunnel:
https://kart.gulesider.no/m/LCqyn

The third one (Bømlafjordtunnelen) must have been entered in error, as that tunnel is clearly single tube. This should not affect the tube length statistics, however, as the tunnel only have one tube entry in the database.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

What about the Karmøy Tunnel? It has 3 branches.


----------



## Galro

There are way more than 3 tunnels with three separate branches in Norway.


----------



## Suburbanist

Norway must update its safety codes for single-bore tunnels.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

Branching is a different story than separate main tunnel tubes. There are many Norwegian tunnels with underground roundabouts or exit or entry ramps. As these will be registered as "tunnel tubes", it may explain some of the discrepancy (if not all) between the "tunnel tube length" and the "tunnel length" (taking into account those with twin or tripple main tubes).

Underground intersections (roundabouts and ramps etc) are by the way not recommended anymore and require special permission from the Directorate of Public Roads. Lately this was for instance not granted for a projected urban tunnel in Trondheim (Byåstunnelen), such that exit to the north-west shown on the outdated map below, as well as a third potential western exit not indicated, will not be built. (The other exits will also be moved slightly)









On the negative side, this will lead to more traffic and conflicts above ground. On the positive side, this might lead to increased tunnel safety. The road directorate also said no to an application of building the tunnel single tube, which of course is a very good decision as the traffic will be rather high, and the cost in fact only is marginally higher as an evavuation tunnel anyway has to be made.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

^^ Rogfast will get a complete diamond interchange at some 250 meters below sea level. I don't think that has ever been done before? I mean there are some underground ramps, but a complete interchange with no portion ending directly at the surface?

Though the Stockholm Bypass also gets underground interchanges.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

No such interchanges have been constructed previously in Norway, at least. I kind of wonder about the economics of it.


----------



## italystf

54°26′S 3°24′E;142813477 said:


> No such interchanges have been constructed previously in Norway, at least. I kind of wonder about the economics of it.


And probably not even around the world. There are quite a few underground interchanges around, but I've never heard of an underwater interchange.


----------



## MattiG

ChrisZwolle said:


> A suspension bridge achieves longer spans relative to tower height.


That is true and evident. On a suspension bridge, the pylons "just" support the suspension cable anchored in the ground. The pylons of a cable-stayed bridge are the key supporting elements: The higher they are, the better they can carry the load.

In Norway, a suspension bridge is quite a natural choice at wide fjord crossings. The pylons can be positioned at the shoreline. As the fjords typically are hundreds of meters deep, a pylon at the midway to support a cable-stayed bridge is a mission impossible.

From the statics point of view, the total height of the pylons does not count. Instead, the height above the deck does count.

One major difference between these bridge types is interesting: The main span of a suspension bridge needs to be straight or almost straight. A cable-stayed bridge may be curved, and quite many notable bridges have been built.


----------



## Galro

italystf said:


> And probably not even around the world. There are quite a few underground interchanges around, but I've never heard of an underwater interchange.


Closest you will get is probably the underwater junction in the Finnøy tunnel in Rogland, but of course it is not a highway and at a much smaller scale than Rogfast will be.


----------



## Suburbanist

At grade junction with crossing flows ? That looks dangerous, a roundabout should have been built


----------



## Galro

^^ The side road have very low traffic. It is also very steep (10.2%!) and with only one lane.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

^^ Above sea level there are more tunnel junctions like this. Not sure how many, but there are 19 so called secondary tubes, but only 15 tunnel roundabouts. (In addition there are 52 ramps). Some of the roundabouts could of course have 4 arms, but most likely there are about 4 secondary tubes with at grade junctions with crossing flows like this one. One example is the side branch of E39 Rosethorntunnelen in Volda. It was built because the people of a small settlement refused to move when the main tunnel was built and the old road was deemed to dangerous/ expensive to be kept open. Most likely, also in the other ~two cases at least one of the branches has very low traffic.

Generally, the risks of tunnels in Norway should not be exaggerated. Statistically tunnels have so far actually shown to be safer than roads in the open. The risk may be higher for single tube tunnels with high traffic, and hence I think the EU tunnel directive is a good thing, which in practice also has opened up for more four lane roads in Norway. The main disadvantage with tunnels are their costs and closures due to maintenance.


----------



## OulaL

Tromsø centre has a local "ring" in a tunnel system with three roundabouts, that lead to a total of four exits and two parking facilities.


----------



## Ryme Intrinseca

54°26′S 3°24′E;142813477 said:


> No such interchanges have been constructed previously in Norway, at least. I kind of wonder about the economics of it.


Do they actually do benefit-cost ratios for schemes like this? It almost seems like a 'money is no object' approach. Certainly in the UK there are busier junctions ON THE SURFACE that would not be grade separated because it would be considered not cost effective to do so, and that's with costs an order of magnitude lower. Not that I'm saying that is the right approach, of course.


----------



## Galro

Ryme Intrinseca said:


> Do they actually do benefit-cost ratios for schemes like this? It almost seems like a 'money is no object' approach. Certainly in the UK there are busier junctions ON THE SURFACE that would not be grade separated because it would be considered not cost effective to do so, and that's with costs an order of magnitude lower. Not that I'm saying that is the right approach, of course.


Yes, all there project are required to go through a cost–benefit analysis before construction and there many proposed projects that never made it because the cost was too high relative to the benefit. What can be different is what are put into those analysis not to mention that politicians are not required to make decisions that are line with them.

But I think a at grade junctions there would be deemed too unsafe to be built regardless of the cost as it would need to cross two tunnel tubes with two lanes in each directions. We never build highway at grade-junctions like that on the surface either. And a roundabout in the middle of a highway in the middle of such a long tunnel would not be particularly popular either. So I think the only feasible alternative would be to drop the whole exit.


----------



## Galro

Construction update of E-18 Tvedestrand - Arendal. Not the largest pictures though ...




































https://www.facebook.com/nyeveierlo...5202571239307/341439826282247/?type=3&theater


----------



## Suburbanist

What other long suspension bridges with a top-cable are out there? It seems an unique design.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Multi-span suspension bridges exist in some countries, like Japan and China. I don't know any with a top cable, I think it's inherent to the floating design.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

^^ I guess the top cable reduces the pitch movement of each floating pylon (i.e rotation around a horizontal axis at right angles to the bridge). They will help far less regarding yaw and roll, though, but for such movements, in particularly yaw, the deck would be stiffer.


----------



## Galro

Construction update of the new e-16 through Sanvika (1,5 month old):









https://www.facebook.com/2238193179...3819317955636/515986982072200/?type=3&theater


----------



## Galro

E39 Svegatjørn-Rådal (oustide of Bergen) construction update: 








































































https://www.facebook.com/Svegatjorn...403584141783/1419299198118883/?type=3&theater


----------



## ChrisZwolle

A 'kuldeporten' came down on a truck in the Storehaug Tunnel of riksvei 13. I've seen those in many tunnels, what is their exact function? Something to prevent icing?


----------



## suburbicide

ChrisZwolle said:


> A 'kuldeporten' came down on a truck in the Storehaug Tunnel of riksvei 13. I've seen those in many tunnels, what is their exact function? Something to prevent icing?


Yes, it's to prevent icing. The door prevents cold air draft through the tunnel.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Do they close the doors at night when there's almost no traffic?


----------



## suburbicide

ChrisZwolle said:


> Do they close the doors at night when there's almost no traffic?


They close in the daytime as well, and automatically open when vehicles approach. They're used in tunnels with little traffic, that have bare rock walls. Ice can cause pieces of rock to break off from the tunnel walls.


----------



## zaphod

54°26′S 3°24′E;142972450 said:


> The Veslemannen (The little man) is once again slowing down as the winter has arrived at that altitude. Most likely it will survive another winter, at least. Not an ideal situation for the evacuated locals.
> 
> The highway is not in immediate danger, btw, it will only be buried once a larger part of the mountain falls down ("Mannen" - the man), but as explained above, that is most likely decades away.


Why not blow it up with explosives now?


----------



## Kjello0

Because it's seen on as to risky for the crew working on the mountain, and the consequences for the rest of the mountain is unknown. They don't want the whole mountain to fall. Only the part that's known as Veslemannen. Veslemannen is about 200 000 cubic metre. While the whole unstable parts of Mannen is about 10 million cubic metre. They fear that if they use explosives to make Veslemannen fall, much of the unstable parts of Mannen will fall as well. Or at least become more unstable.


----------



## Galro

New tunnel at Fv. 32 in Porsgrunn.










Construction update:








https://www.telemark.no/Fylkeskommunen/OEkonomi/Budsjetter/Budsjett-2018-2021









https://altomporsgrunn.no/lordag-16...sning-pa-anleggsomradet-ved-lilleelvkrysset5/


----------



## Galro

There will likely be requirements that construction firms workings on Vegvesenets projects will have use zero-emission construction vehicles from 2019. 

https://vegnett.no/2017/10/vil-ha-utslippsfrie-anleggsmaskiner/


----------



## Galro

Galro said:


> Construction update of the new e-16 through Sanvika (1,5 month old):


Drone video:


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Galro said:


> There will likely be requirements that construction firms workings on Vegvesenets projects will have use zero-emission construction vehicles from 2019.
> 
> https://vegnett.no/2017/10/vil-ha-utslippsfrie-anleggsmaskiner/


2019 is only one year from now (give or take). Do they even exist? Electric dump trucks? Electric excavators? Electric piling rigs?

I think this requirement is not good for competition.


----------



## Galro

Breakthrough have been achieved in one of the tubes in the Ryfast tunnel.


















https://www.tu.no/artikler/na-motes...-under-fjorden-med-millimeterpresisjon/410116


----------



## Galro

Timelapse of the lifting of the deck elements of the Hålogaland bridge.

241133012


----------



## Mehmet92

I really feel bad for you norwegians. So manny pay tolls, its crazy.


----------



## devo

Except toll rings most tolls are in place for only 15 years at a time. And many are also set up to pay for a tunnel or bridge replacing a ferry. Which means that in these circumstances you basically pay the same as you would for the ferry but you don't have to take waiting time into consideration.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

The new Beitstadsund Bridge of Fv. 17 near Steinkjer will be constructed by a Chinese construction company; the Sichuan Road and Bridge Group. It seems to be the first time a Chinese construction company is doing a road project in Norway (and perhaps Western Europe for that matter...)

https://www.vegvesen.no/Fylkesveg/f...-and-bridge-group-skal-bygge-beitstadsundbrua


----------



## Galro

^^ It's Sichuan Road and Bridge Group that are constructing the Hålogaland Bridge too.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

^^ I was not aware of that. Though apparently the Sichuan Road and Bridge Group contract is only for the steel components of the bridge. It has a 755 million NOK value compared to the 3.1 billion NOK overall project cost.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

The Norwegian newspaper VG had a big article on the surveilance and maintenance of Norwegian bridges today. Apparently, the quality system is not followed by the letter. 1 087 of 16 971* had faults that could affect traffic safety, load capacities, or both. Rules for inspection are broken for 50 % of the bridges. Of course, the newspaper probably make it look a bit worse than it actually is, as most likely Statens vegvesen has bent the rules a little to focus their limited resources on the bridges they deem to be at most risk. If you look into the details, a lot of the deviations are due to insufficient or broken railing etc, but for some integrity is an issue, like for the infamous, but carefully monitored, Sluppen bridge.
Article: https://www.vg.no/spesial/2017/de-forsomte-broene/inspeksjoner/
Interactive map: https://www.vg.no/spesial/2017/de-forsomte-broene/kart/










*There are more than 22000 public bridges in Norway by the way. The remaining ones I assume are primarily municipal ones, and I would be very surprised if the situation of those are any better.


----------



## Ingenioren

The westbound buslane on E18 Bærum will be turned back into a regular lane


----------



## ChrisZwolle

What a big surprise: traffic congestion worsened and buses were still stuck in traffic, but on a different location due to longer traffic jams. The decline in traffic due to the increased toll rates was also less than expected.

You often see a short-term decline in traffic after a significant increase of the toll rates has been implemented. This is usually widely reported in the media. But then traffic goes back to normal after a few months or a year. This is usually not reported in the media.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

Someone was very lucky going home from school in June, see video clip in this article: https://www.nrk.no/buskerud/foreldrene-har-hatt-det-vondt-etter-nestenulykke-pa-gol-1.13774865


----------



## hammersklavier

ChrisZwolle said:


> You often see a short-term decline in traffic after a significant increase of the toll rates has been implemented. This is usually widely reported in the media. But then traffic goes back to normal after a few months or a year. This is usually not reported in the media.


...which implies the tolling authority can get away with charging a still-higher toll.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

Some official images from the new 8 km four-lane E6 construction zone south of Trondheim. I still cannot phatom how the morons running the city could decide to scale down the width of most of this highly trafficated road to save a few bucks. One consequence will be that the speed limit will be 80 km/h. To bad "Nye veier" did not get their hands on it. Nevertheless, the new road will of course be a huge improvement from the previous regularly jammed two-lane road. To be fully opened in 2019.

































More images can be found on the project's facebook page. https://www.facebook.com/e6trondheimmelhus/


----------



## MattiG

54°26′S 3°24′E;143474341 said:


> Some official images from the new 8 km four-lane E6 construction zone south of Trondheim. I still cannot phatom how the morons running the city could decide to scale down the width of most of this highly trafficated road to save a few bucks. One consequence will be that the speed limit will be 80 km/h. To bad "Nye veier" did not get their hands on it. Nevertheless, the new road will of course be a huge improvement from the previous regularly jammed two-lane road. To be fully opened in 2019.
> 
> More images can be found on the project's facebook page. https://www.facebook.com/e6trondheimmelhus/


I believe the world is full of such failed road projects where the cost got squeezed by 10% and the usability by 50 %.

One example is the Ring 2 of Helsinki, which is not a ring. The interchanges at both ends are sub-sub-standard.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

^^ You are maybe right, but Norway has seemed to be more fond of such solutions than most other developed countries. Another victim of the budget cut was btw the E39/E6 interchange, which is part of this project. Whereas E6 itself finally will be grade separated there, the E39 traffic still have to enter E6 via a roundabout.


----------



## Gsus

54°26′S 3°24′E;143474341 said:


> Some official images from the new 8 km four-lane E6 construction zone south of Trondheim. I still cannot phatom how the morons running the city could decide to scale down the width of most of this highly trafficated road to save a few bucks. One consequence will be that the speed limit will be 80 km/h. To bad "Nye veier" did not get their hands on it. Nevertheless, the new road will of course be a huge improvement from the previous regularly jammed two-lane road. To be fully opened in 2019.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More images can be found on the project's facebook page. https://www.facebook.com/e6trondheimmelhus/


Don`t know if the politicians is the right people to blame. They`ve probably been presented with a package on how to save some dimes. That package is developed by SVV and their consultants, and is quite typical when things gets to expensive compared to earlier calculations. There`s allways a cut-list.

Anyway, the speed limit seems to be 100 km/t from Melhus until Storler, right north of the new railway-bridge. From there, I think the speed-limit easily would have become 80 anyway, because of things like short distances between intersections combined with lots of local traffic mixed with long-distance traffic.

That being said, I`m very glad that the 1,5 meter wide shoulder on motorways seems to be over and out when the new normals is finalized. 1,5 meter has allways been too narrow for any vehicle (except bikes) to really get out of the way, especially where theres a crash-barrier. When the shoulder-line also often has been marked a bit out on the shoulder, to make a wider right lane (to reduce surface-maintenance, mainly because of lots of heavy vehicles in that lane), the shoulder is even narrower than 1,5 meter on a lot of those roads.


----------



## VoltAmps

54°26′S 3°24′E;143443447 said:


> Someone was very lucky going home from school in June, see video clip in this article: https://www.nrk.no/buskerud/foreldrene-har-hatt-det-vondt-etter-nestenulykke-pa-gol-1.13774865


As a kid I was always taught to look both ways before crossing the street. What are they teaching these idiot kids in Norway?


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

The relevant rule of thumb in this case, though, would be "Do not cross the road before the bus has left the stop" (looking to the right would not have helped as the view of the bus was obscured by the bus.....)


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

Gsus said:


> Don`t know if the politicians is the right people to blame. They`ve probably been presented with a package on how to save some dimes. That package is developed by SVV and their consultants, and is quite typical when things gets to expensive compared to earlier calculations. There`s allways a cut-list.
> 
> Anyway, the speed limit seems to be 100 km/t from Melhus until Storler, right north of the new railway-bridge. From there, I think the speed-limit easily would have become 80 anyway, because of things like short distances between intersections combined with lots of local traffic mixed with long-distance traffic.
> 
> That being said, I`m very glad that the 1,5 meter wide shoulder on motorways seems to be over and out when the new normals is finalized. 1,5 meter has allways been too narrow for any vehicle (except bikes) to really get out of the way, especially where theres a crash-barrier. When the shoulder-line also often has been marked a bit out on the shoulder, to make a wider right lane (to reduce surface-maintenance, mainly because of lots of heavy vehicles in that lane), the shoulder is even narrower than 1,5 meter on a lot of those roads.


Those making the decisions should be able to see through this, the math is really not that hard. The difference between say 80 and 100 km/h is (1/80+1/100)x60x60=9 seconds. With 30 000 cars per day that becomes 9x30 000x365.25/60/60~=27 000 hours per year. Let's say the average hourly cost is about 17 euros (about half the average wage in Norway, a quite low cost considering that the average occupancy per car is 1.54), then 27 000 hours mean an annual cost of 466 000 euros per km. With say 5% discount rate and 50 years lifetime, this corresponds to approximately 9 M€ in NPV per km. I sincerely doubt that the savings per km caused by the 3 m reduction in width were even close. Widening the road later would be another story, though. 

If they don't understand the math, they should at least ask critical question about how the savings in investment costs they demand impact the economy of the project for the society at large. Of course, there are also other considerations to take into account here, like ideology and the need to prioritize, but I personally think the most important reason is incompetence. Before the reduction in width I think the plan was to have 100 km/h here, btw, there are not that many ramps.

The main problem is that it is up to local politicians to make such decisions in Norway. They should have a say in where national infrastructure should be placed, but they should not have the final word, and certainly not when it comes to road standards. 

We have another case where local politicians in the municipality just south of Trondheim, Melhus, may make a very bad decision next week. Nye Veier is responsible for building a new E6 motorway here, but has asked to have one of many interchanges of the municipality scrapped. This would mean that a village of Ler of around 500 people would have to drive a few km extra (following the current E6) before they enter the motorway. Hence, the local municipality may refuse this change of plans. The problem is that the cost of the interchange is estimated to be 400 MNOK (44 M€), and would hence significantly worsen the economy of this section and could lead to a delay of this project of national interest until 2035. There is an option for the state to overrun the municipality, but this option is rarely used in Norway.


Map of planned E6 south of Trondheim








Current E6 in Melhus municipality (in the village of Lundamo)


----------



## VoltAmps

54°26′S 3°24′E;143529739 said:


> The relevant rule of thumb in this case, though, would be "Do not cross the road before the bus has left the stop" (looking to the right would not have helped as the view of the bus was obscured by the bus.....)


Looking to the right and seeing a bus blocking your view means it's not safe to cross. You don't know what could be on the other side. Simple


----------



## MattiG

VoltAmps said:


> Looking to the right and seeing a bus blocking your view means it's not safe to cross. You don't know what could be on the other side. Simple


Kids less than 12 years tend to misunderstand even the most basic rules.

When I was a kid, the advice was: "look right then left then right once more". This led to a number of miserable accidents. Why? Because kids did not recognize the most important implicit rule: "If a vehicle approaches when you look on right or left, do not cross". When you advise kids, be as explicit as possible.

Basically, the IQ of a group of people is usually less than the average IQ of individual members to the group. The common formula is IQ[Group]<=max(IQ)/N where 'max(IQ)' is the highest individual IQ in the group and 'N' is the number of members in the group. Optimists use SQRT(N) as the divisor. This logic tells us that people tend to do more dumb things as a group than they would do as individuals. Please count the number of kids in the video.


----------



## ElviS77

^^
Yup. Again, kids do unfortunate, reckless and outright dangerous things without thinking over and over again, it's got nothing to do with nationality. Actually, in spite of often being narrow, dark, slippery, wet and generally not a very good environment for children, Norwegian roads kill and injure fewer children than roads in most other countries. Go figure...


----------



## italystf

MattiG said:


> Kids less than 12 years tend to misunderstand even the most basic rules.
> 
> When I was a kid, the advice was: "look right then left then right once more". This led to a number of miserable accidents. Why? Because kids did not recognize the most important implicit rule: "If a vehicle approaches when you look on right or left, do not cross". When you advise kids, be as explicit as possible.
> 
> Basically, the IQ of a group of people is usually less than the average IQ of individual members to the group. The common formula is IQ[Group]<=max(IQ)/N where 'max(IQ)' is the highest individual IQ in the group and 'N' is the number of members in the group. Optimists use SQRT(N) as the divisor. This logic tells us that people tend to do more dumb things as a group than they would do as individuals. Please count the number of kids in the video.


In group people tend to pay less attention because they feel safer as they think someone else in the group is taking care.


----------



## hammersklavier

54°26′S 3°24′E;143553631 said:


> Those making the decisions should be able to see through this, the math is really not that hard. The difference between say 80 and 100 km/h is (1/80+1/100)x60x60=9 seconds. With 30 000 cars per day that becomes 9x30 000x365.25/60/60~=27 000 hours per year. Let's say the average hourly cost is about 17 euros (about half the average wage in Norway, a quite low cost considering that the average occupancy per car is 1.54), then 27 000 hours mean an annual cost of 466 000 euros per km. With say 5% discount rate and 50 years lifetime, this corresponds to approximately 9 M€ in NPV per km. I sincerely doubt that the savings per km caused by the 3 m reduction in width were even close. Widening the road later would be another story, though.
> 
> If they don't understand the math, they should at least ask critical question about how the savings in investment costs they demand impact the economy of the project for the society at large. Of course, there are also other considerations to take into account here, like ideology and the need to prioritize, but I personally think the most important reason is incompetence. Before the reduction in width I think the plan was to have 100 km/h here, btw, there are not that many ramps.
> 
> The main problem is that it is up to local politicians to make such decisions in Norway. They should have a say in where national infrastructure should be placed, but they should not have the final word, and certainly not when it comes to road standards.
> 
> We have another case where local politicians in the municipality just south of Trondheim, Melhus, may make a very bad decision next week. Nye Veier is responsible for building a new E6 motorway here, but has asked to have one of many interchanges of the municipality scrapped. This would mean that a village of Ler of around 500 people would have to drive a few km extra (following the current E6) before they enter the motorway. Hence, the local municipality may refuse this change of plans. The problem is that the cost of the interchange is estimated to be 400 MNOK (44 M€), and would hence significantly worsen the economy of this section and could lead to a delay of this project of national interest until 2035. There is an option for the state to overrun the municipality, but this option is rarely used in Norway.
> 
> 
> Map of planned E6 south of Trondheim
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Current E6 in Melhus municipality (in the village of Lundamo)


OTOH it would have been in the interests of Ler were the route into Trondheim at least six lanes wide as it's probably close enough to the city to generate development interest as long as the main road is not excessively narrow.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

^^ In the political climate of Norway I think that would be impossibility in the foreseeable future. Even at the highly trafficated E18 western corridor other lanes stops at Sandvika today, 15 km from the downtown of the capital, and in the new plan for E18 six lanes only proceeds slightly longer (to Slependen, 18 km away). Although this may change in the decades ahead when zero-emmission cars becomes even more dominant, facilitating spare capacity for future car commuting would be an extremely hard sell in Norway. 

The second argument may probably seem strange seen from the outside, but Norway is a country with relatively little cultivated area, which is shrinking by the day as most cities are located in valleys and along the coast where farming is the best. As most countries, Norway would like to be as self-sustained as possible when it comes to food and energy. Ler, and most of its surroundings, are in Norwegian terms prime farming area. Hence, it would be much better to grow the city in the forrested hills surrounding it, but even that is far from possible on a large scale in a climate where only densification of the current built-up areas is seen as politically correct.

High use of farm land us by the way an argument that is also used by the opponents of the Ler interchange, in addition to the high cost of the interchange, both partly due to the location of the new E6 on the opposite side of the valley (west) compared with the town of Ler (east). Hence, the centrist party (which used to be called the farmer's party) in the municipality is heavily against.

---

PS: Common sense actually prevailed in Melhus municipal council, with the majority by only one vote decided to allow Nye Veier to build the new E6 without the Ler connection, under the condition that they build the road within 2030 at the latest. Nye Veier has said that they may finish earlier than this, actually the full 71 km Melhus - Ulsberg within 2027. I doubt the condition of Melhus has much legal or practical significance, though.


----------



## MattiG

Galro said:


> I'm not sure how you can see that let alone easily. There are plenty of roads that gets build to make for a better regional or national road network while the local connections are secondary. Tthis project is explicitly there to provide better connections with the settlements on both sides of the fjord and make Vesterålen and Lofotoen into something resembling a "metro area".
> 
> They are just conducting a feasibility study on a improved connection across the fjord. They haven't even decided to recommend a tunnel yet. I don't think anyone involved with the project are under any illusion that it won't take many years before it gets built should they decide to go with a tunnel. It's not even mentioned in NTP.


It is amazing to see how parochial the Norwegian transport strategy is. The national network is simply lousy, and everybody focuses to the nearest neighborhood only. Nye Veier got established at the last moment.


----------



## embassyofaudrey

54°26′S 3°24′E;143443447 said:


> Someone was very lucky going home from school in June, see video clip in this article: https://www.nrk.no/buskerud/foreldrene-har-hatt-det-vondt-etter-nestenulykke-pa-gol-1.13774865


i watch it on youtube. oh my gosh...3second to dead. closeee enough.

norway road impressive.. :cheers:


----------



## Ingenioren

Galro said:


> It's not even mentioned in NTP.


It's a county road


----------



## Agent 006

*E18:* Larvik - Sky 3 km (2013 to December 2017 --> March 2018)

Source: https://www.nrk.no/nyheter/krevjande-design-utsett-e18-bru-1.13776776
Project: https://www.vegvesen.no/Europaveg/e18larvik


*E39:* Harestad - Bokn ca. 28 km (January 2018 to 2015/26)

Source: https://www.vegvesen.no/Europaveg/e39rogfast/Nyhetsarkiv/na-er-vi-igang-med-verdas-lengste-og-djupaste-undersjoiske-tunnel
Project: https://www.vegvesen.no/Europaveg/e39rogfast
Map: https://www.vegvesen.no/_attachment/1865792/binary/1182925?fast_title=Oversiktstegning+Rogfast%2C+mai+2017.pdf


----------



## ChrisZwolle

*E39 Nordfjord Crossing*

Renders have been released of the new Nordfjord Crossing between Byrkjelo and Grodås, west of Stryn.

It would be a very large suspension bridge with a main span of circa 1500 meters, which would rank it among the top of the world's suspension bridges. To achieve a stronger structure, the bridge will have a wider deck, with four lanes. The bridge clearance is 75 meters and the towers will be 250 meters tall.


----------



## Heico-M

That is another ambitious project and, as I know the region a bit, it makes absolutley sense for long distance traffic. 

I just wondered: If E39 is meant as a ferry free connection for the coastal reagion, isn't this road way too far a way from the coast??


----------



## Galro

Here are two more illustrations of the bridge:


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

Heico-M said:


> That is another ambitious project and, as I know the region a bit, it makes absolutley sense for long distance traffic.
> 
> I just wondered: If E39 is meant as a ferry free connection for the coastal reagion, isn't this road way too far a way from the coast??


Yes, the alignment of E39 is unfortunately another example where local politics have got the upper hand in national road strategies. Both the Nordfjord and Sognefjord crossings should be further west. Most likely it will take decades before any of these are built, however. The county in question will soon merge with the far more populous county to the south, which includes Bergen, which should be more interested in a more efficient road northwards. Perhaps we can hope for a more sensible alignment before any of these bridges are built.

It is a bit funny how dense traffic the Nordfjord bridge has on the animations, btw.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

The only sizable communities left out from the inland route of E39 are Florø and Maløy. Are they really that important?


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

To be honest, there simply are no important towns in county of Sogn og Fjordane, and the largest communities are already connected by other national roads. The point is that the current route is much longer than it has to be, and hence will make it much less efficient as a link between Bergen / Stavanger on the south end and Sunnmøre (eg Ålesund), Molde, Kristiansund and Trondheim at the northern end. In addition, fjord crossings can be expected to be easier and less expensive towards the fjord mouths due to shallower water compared with the extreme depths further inland.


----------



## Rob73

ChrisZwolle said:


> The only sizable communities left out from the inland route of E39 are Florø and Maløy. Are they really that important?



There's about 12,000 people between both towns, I don't think they matter much at all. Give it another decade of so and they will probably have half that number of people. Urban drift has started in Norway, a lot these smaller towns are just going to get smaller, some will likely disappear given time. We will end up with a lot of expensive roads, tunnels and bridges leading to nowhereville.


----------



## Rob73

devo said:


> Except toll rings most tolls are in place for only 15 years at a time. And many are also set up to pay for a tunnel or bridge replacing a ferry. Which means that in these circumstances you basically pay the same as you would for the ferry but you don't have to take waiting time into consideration.




I'm pretty certain that there has only been a couple of tunnels and bridges where you paid the same rates as the previous ferry, that was Kristiansund Mainland Connection Krifast (now toll free) and now on the other side the Atlantic Ocean Tunnel, I think it's absolutely stupid paying for passangers as well as the vehicle, it also means the toll posts have to be manned, there's no automatic toll, which (I'm sure) adds to the operating costs.


----------



## Rob73

Galro said:


> The junction on Otrøya that is part of the planned E39 romdalsfjord crossing have been redesigned. This redesign reportedly made the crossing 130 mill NOK cheaper.
> 
> Earlier junction:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redesign. It now appears like there will only one roundabout at one side of the bridge.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.vareveger.no/artikler/ny-krysslosning-sparer-130-mill-e39/412757



I'm really looking forward to seeing this being built. I drive past it everyday, it will be fascinating seeing it going up, I just wish they would hurry up and get started.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

*E6 Sørkjosen Tunnel*

The Sørkjosen Tunnel of E6 in Northern Norway is scheduled to open to traffic on 2 February. It is a 4.6 kilometer long tunnel that bypasses a low but exposed mountain pass west of the village of Sørkjosen.

E6 was blocked in Sørkjosen due to a slide near the construction site in 2015. The detour route was 700 kilometers long via Finland.


----------



## MattiG

ChrisZwolle said:


> The Sørkjosen Tunnel of E6 in Northern Norway is scheduled to open to traffic on 2 February. It is a 4.6 kilometer long tunnel that bypasses a low but exposed mountain pass west of the village of Sørkjosen.
> 
> E6 was blocked in Sørkjosen due to a slide near the construction site in 2015. The detour route was 700 kilometers long via Finland.


The route from the south end of the slide to its north end was 700+ kilometers.

However, the detour Skibotn-Finland-Alta is only 140 km longer than the direct route E6 Skibotn-Alta. And the route Skibotn-Finland-Karasjok is anyway 100 km shorter than the "direct route" E6. Therefore, the inconvenience caused was less than it might look.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

SVV has released a proposal for E6 alignment Åsen - Mære in the Innherred district somewhat north of Trondheim. It seems like the aim luckily is four lanes /110 km/h. 
https://www.vegvesen.no/Europaveg/e6innherred




Hence, currently, it seems like 110 km/h - four lanes is in the cards for most of the 220 km E6 Ulsberg - Steinkjer, covering the most central parts of the Trøndelag county. Also 30 km E39 Klett (Trondheim) - Orkanger will be four lanes, but it is unclear whether the geometry will be good enough for 110 km/h. What is even more unclear is when plans will become roads. Probably this will take some decades, unfortunately.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

The Sykkylven Bridge of Fv. 71 becomes toll-free on 1 February: http://www.smp.no/nyheter/2017/11/24/Bommen-på-Sykkylvsbrua-forsvinn-1.-februar-15650558.ece


----------



## suburbicide

Car sales data (or more accurately registrations) for 2017 were announced today. Zero emission vehicles (the vast majority electric) had a share of 20.9%, while hybrids accounted for 31.1%, petrol 24.7% and diesel 23.1%.

Top 10 selling cars:

1. Volkswagen Golf 
2. BMW i3 
3. Toyota Rav4 
4. Tesla Model X 
5. Volkswagen Passat 
6. Mitsubishi Outlander PHEV 
7. Toyota Yaris 
8. Tesla Model S 
9. Skoda Octavia
10. Toyota C-HR


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Are there incentives for hybrid vehicles? 

In the Netherlands they cut the incentives for hybrids, focusing on battery electric only. So not many people choose a hybrid anymore as a company car. 

Though hybrids can be interesting for consumers, they allow you to drive a larger car with good mileage.


----------



## suburbicide

^^The tax on hybrids is lower than on cars with higher emissions, so the sales price is competitive. Other than that, I’m not aware of any incentives.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

Nye veier has released some more information regarding their plans for E6 in Trøndelag, north and south of Trondheim. Of the 108 km they are mandated to construct, only 12 km will not be of motorway standard and 110 km/h. Challenging terrain and hence high costs are given as reasons for these exceptions. The plans, especially south of Trondheim, are still under progress, though. All in all this will be a great improvement compared with the current situation, even if I in the ideal world would like to see a motorway completed all the way to Trondheim-Oslo ASAP.....


----------



## Rob73

54°26′S 3°24′E;144414185 said:


> I do not feel discriminated, but you pretty much sums up why I did not end up with an electric car last time. Nevertheless, I believe electric cars are the future, and Musk certainly deserves some praise for being visionary. Too bad he scrapped battery switch, though, it would have eliminated the "range fear" associated with electric cars.




I don't think electric is the future, it's a side road, I believe hydrogen is the way ahead, it solves the problem of range, refuelling and is a plentiful resource that we have more of it than we will ever use.


----------



## Stafangr

Rob73 said:


> I don't think electric is the future, it's a side road, I believe hydrogen is the way ahead, it solves the problem of range, refuelling and is a plentiful resource that we have more of it than we will ever use.


I think electric is the future for small vehicles (cars, buses, vans/lorries, etc.), medium sized ships in coastal traffic, and trains in urban areas, while hydrogen is the future for large ships, train lines which go outside the urban areas, and trucks doing long-distance routes.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

The hydrogen chain has very low efficiency, as you have exergy losses both during production and in the engine or fuel cell. It is also has low energy density under realizable pressures in a vehicle. I do believe hydrogen could have a future as a clean energy carrier for remote power production and have a role in clean energy production from fossile or biofuels(eg. natural gas conversion to hydrogen and CO2, CO2 is stored (CCS), and hydrogen runs a thermal power plant. I actually also think that hydrogen can have a future in aviation, where the weight of batteries could be a problem. However, obviously, the extreme flammability of hydrogen compared for instance with the relevant competitor biodiesel is an obvious issue which has to be dealt with. It should be noted that hydrogen ignite at almost any concentration in air, natural gad/methane is actually very safe in comparison. 

Batteries will drastically improve, but already today the perceived problem of range is commercial, not technical. Tesla has already proved that it is possible to change batteries faster than fossile cars are refueled. A uniform standard for batteries will come due to the need of recycling. As this happens I am sure that commercial models for battery swap will be found, and range fear will be history.






Oh, and hydrogen is not an energy resource, it is only an energy carrier.


----------



## Rob73

Batteries will improve until we run out of the resources needed to produce them, there's also the issue of disposal of them at EOL.

Battery swap was dumped because it's not cost effective, supercharger stations don't need to be manned, battery swap stations do, you'd need at least 6-12 stations in a city the size of Oslo to make it convenient for users.


----------



## g.spinoza

Tesla itself doesn't believe in fast swap:

https://www.teslarati.com/tesla-shuts-down-battery-swap-program-for-superchargers/



54°26′S 3°24′E;144470220 said:


> Batteries will drastically improve, but already today the perceived problem of range is commercial, not technical. Tesla has already proved that it is possible to change batteries faster than fossile cars are refueled. A uniform standard for batteries will come due to the need of recycling. As this happens I am sure that commercial models for battery swap will be found, and range fear will be history.


----------



## Galro

Some looks at the e16 Filefjell project.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

g.spinoza said:


> Tesla itself doesn't believe in fast swap:
> 
> https://www.teslarati.com/tesla-shuts-down-battery-swap-program-for-superchargers/


That's just what I said further up. It does not mean the idea is stupid, but perhaps it was not ripe. 



Rob73 said:


> Batteries will improve until we run out of the resources needed to produce them, there's also the issue of disposal of them at EOL.


I agree that the current systems for handling batteries is not sustainable. Especially cobalt prices are likely to increase with current technologies. With future technologies this is less of a problem, but in any case robust recycling systems should be put in place, just the same way as we have for lead accumulators today. An inherent prerequisite would then be a certain level of standardization, which also will enable more economic battery swap technologies. 



Rob73 said:


> Battery swap was dumped because it's not cost effective, supercharger stations don't need to be manned, battery swap stations do, you'd need at least 6-12 stations in a city the size of Oslo to make it convenient for users.


As mentioned, I think scale is an important factor the economy of a swapping station system, but the stations will certainly not have to be permanently staffed. 

Why do you think 6-12 stations in a city like Oslo would be a problem? The current number of petrol stations is far higher. People with private parking might still find it practical with slow home charging, though, but it will not be a solution for everybody or all types of travel. 

Charging stations are not will never be equivalents. Let's say you want to charge a 100 kWh battery in a minute. That would correspond to an electric power of 6 MW, which is more than the capacity of than each of almost all Norwegian wind mills or a decent local high voltage line. Not easy to switch fast in or out of the network, and the battery itself will fry. 

A future where automated electric vehicles are owned by fleet companies who rent them out by the hour is actually far more likely, but could face problems in countries like Norway where people like to drive to remote and lonely places with limited infrastructure (and with winter!). For longer travels you would then have vehicle swap rather than battery swap, but everybody traveling with a family know that swapping a vehicle could be unpractical. Maybe trunk-swap would be needed as well ;-)


----------



## g.spinoza

So do you really think that fast swap unmanned stations could exist? Do you think that the lady grandma who goes driving for groceries can extract and replace 200+ kg of batteries from her car by herself?


----------



## Suburbanist

Automated fast swap station are actually a predecessor to Tesla, Renault tried that in a pilot program with Better Place, in Israel. However the batteries were more inefficient and saved just 20% of fuel costs. Automated battery swapping took just 3 minutes.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

g.spinoza said:


> So do you really think that fast swap unmanned stations could exist? Do you think that the lady grandma who goes driving for groceries can extract and replace 200+ kg of batteries from her car by herself?


Have a look at the video above. Tesla has already demonstrated that the swap itself can be done automatic (and much faster than refueling at a normal gas station), and so has Renault apparently ^^, but approximately twice the time of Tesla. Not sure how Tesla arranged the logistics (transportation, charging, testing, and storage of unused batteries), but it should in any case be much easier to automate than the swap itself. In total I would assume that a battery swap station is less complicated than for instance automatic car-wash.


----------



## Galro

The construction site around Soknedalstunnelen at e6 south of Trondheim. 






The project:


----------



## Suburbanist

A demonstration of the defunct Better Place battery swap station





Better Place was plagued by commercial and management issues, and as I said battery technology evolved a lot since 2012. However, the battery switch stations themselves are nothing otherwordly. Remember that transporting fuel in tank trucks (as it is done in most of the World) is nothing easy either. Gas stations require storage of volatile fuel, leave soil often contaminated etc.

Transporting a chunk of batteries to rebalance stock wouldn't be something insurmountable.


----------



## g.spinoza

^^ This is ok for a specific brand and model of car, but a future battery swap station should be able to work for _every_ kind of cars, with every possible battery arrangement and position, even cars not even made yet. And based on what I saw on that video, it's not going to be as easy.

I mean, I don't refuel my diesel Peugeot in a diesel-Peugeot-only gas station.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

^^ I am repeating myself here, but just like there are standards for gasoline and gasoline nozzles. There will have to be standards (at least regional) for batteries and battery placement and mounting. Already there are standards for EV charging plugs and sockets: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEC_62196


----------



## g.spinoza

54°26′S 3°24′E;144568095 said:


> ^^ I am repeating myself here, but just like there are standards for gasoline and gasoline nozzles. There will have to be standards (at least regional) for batteries and battery placement and mounting.


You may be repeating yourself, but the fact is that there are no standards for battery placement and there will not be. Please explain how the future equivalents of Fiat Panda and Mercedes G type can have the same batteries arranged in the same manner.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

g.spinoza said:


> You may be repeating yourself, but the fact is that there are no standards for battery placement and there will not be. Please explain how the future equivalents of Fiat Panda and Mercedes G type can have the same batteries arranged in the same manner.


There are basically only five things that can be varied once the optimal type (or market winner) of battery cell technology has been developed:

Placement: Due to their weight there is only one logical place to locate the batteries in the car and that is at the bottom and along the longitudinal center line of the car. In any case, with suitable identifiers it will not be a difficult to develope a robot that can locate the battery with great accuracy.
Mechanical mounting: Standardization should not be a problem
Electrical connection: Standardization should not be a problem
Battery energy content: This is of course where your Panda and Mercedes might have different needs. Either you can have, just like for automotive fuel, a few different types. For batteries that means that you have a selection of different sizes. Alternatively you may actually vary the number of batteries, or use different number of standardized cell modules depending on the energy neeeds of the vehicle. Using standard cell modules means that the swapping station only need to have one "product line". On the other hand, it is probably not ideal if cell modules of different usage history are mixed, so the best option is probably to have 3-5 different battery types.
Battery max power load: I am not sure whether this will be a limitation, but the answer is basically the same as for energy content. A small selection of battery sizes or a system where the number of batteries or cell modules in paralell can be varied.


----------



## Rob73

54°26′S 3°24′E;144557519 said:


> A future where automated electric vehicles are owned by fleet companies who rent them out by the hour is actually far more likely, but could face problems in countries like Norway where people like to drive to remote and lonely places with limited infrastructure (and with winter!). For longer travels you would then have vehicle swap rather than battery swap, but everybody traveling with a family know that swapping a vehicle could be unpractical. Maybe trunk-swap would be needed as well ;-)




That's a horrible future. I was in St Petersburg last year when my agents car died, he's a member of a car swapping service so the following day he found a car, it was a nice tidy car, low miles, all good, we went to our first meeting, came back after 1.5 hours and the car was gone, so Kirill looked for a new car on his ap, he located one about 10 minutes walk so off we went, the next car was truely vile, the previous user had trashed the interior, used condoms, booze bottles, it just nasty, so off to find another car, another 10 minute walk, this car was also dirty inside but usable, just one day of using a car pooling service has put me off it for life. I really want to be the only person farting in my drivers seat.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

^^ :lol:

Personally I think I would miss to be able to control the car myself. At least with automated car service, the car will pick you up and not the opposite. Also I can use my carport for something else (my other garage already is full of junk ;-) )


----------



## Rob73

54°26′S 3°24′E;144568095 said:


> ^^ I am repeating myself here, but just like there are standards for gasoline and gasoline nozzles. There will have to be standards (at least regional) for batteries and battery placement and mounting. Already there are standards for EV charging plugs and sockets: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEC_62196



I don't think there will be a single standard for batteries, battery technology will never be standardised to the point where every car will use the same battery nor will every bettery be mounted in the same location, VW has alreay said they are looking at splitting up the battery packs and mountings them in various locations around the chassis, this is for better weight distribution and for crash testing reasons.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

Standards tend to develop whenever there is a great need for it, even if different companies of course will try keep their proprietary systems. There are many relatively recent examples of this, most of which in fact have happended without government interference. For battery swap, you might have a government push as well, though, as standardisation is required both to make EVs an alternative which both is environmentally sound and have high degree of market penetration.

I have not seen the VW statement you are referring to, but the arguments do not seem convincing. Neither from a safety, driveability, or other mechanical point of view I see any reason not to place the battery as a single unit, as low as possible, and at the center position along the lateral axis. Then there is only the form factor, sockets, and possibibly cooling system interfaces to agree upon.

Swapping networks have already been developed in, btw China (with 500 stations, and plans for 12 000 more), and it seems like also India is pushing for this now. Hence, my guess is that these markets and public transport systems will be the forerunners of battery swap technology and standardization.


----------



## Stafangr

I still don't see the benefits of battery swaps tho. The outcome of more moving parts at the 'battery-swap station' and more a complicated logistics chain, is that more things can go wrong.

If a new battery technology pops up with reduced charging times, battery swapping stations will be outdated already. Why not have a large battery at the charging station to keep a stable and predictable demand on the electricity grid, rather than moving the batteries around all the time?


----------



## MattiG

Stafangr said:


> If a new battery technology pops up with reduced charging times, battery swapping stations will be outdated already.


Most probably not. It is not a question of battery only, but available power from the grid.

If there is a need to "refuel" say 60 kWh in a time comparable to current stay at the pump, max 5 minutes, that would need 0.9 MW per "pump" at the efficiency rate of 80%. Thus, a tiny gas station of 4 pumps would need 3.6 MW at peaks. Such a feed is not easy to be arranged especially in rural areas, and it would probably be pretty expensive.

Because the power logistics is hard to solve, I believe that the era of electric cars will be short, perhaps 20-30 years only. That is a short time to make big investments, and a short time to agree on credible standards.

Remember the Ampere ferry on E39 at Sognefjord. It is fed a by two 260 kWh buffering batteries, installed at both the docks, because the power grid could not stand the fast charging of 10 minutes after each leg of 20 minutes. The fast charging would need about 2 MW at both ends.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

^^I generally agree with most of your arguments. Although we hear very impressive claims regarding eg solid state battery charging times, I also think that transferring all this energy to the car battery in let say a minute will remain a challenge. There will always be some resistance, which will create a lot of heat. The 100 kWh battery of eg Tesla represents a lot of energy. In mechanical terms in fact the potential energy of about 7300 cubic meters at 5 meters height.... 


MattiG said:


> Because the power logistics is hard to solve, I believe that the era of electric cars will be short, perhaps 20-30 years only.


But which technology do you think magically will pop up then? I do not see any realistic alternatives.


----------



## MattiG

54°26′S 3°24′E;144660339 said:


> But which technology do you think magically will pop up then? I do not see any realistic alternatives.


I do not know. Most probably something which is completely different from what we currently understand. Such disruptions seldom are foreseeable by Joe Averages like me. I believe that something revolutionary will arise instead of waiting for the fruits of the current evolutionary thinking.

Examples:

1) In late 1800's, it was estimated that the city of Helsinki would never grow bigger than 200,000 inhabitants. Reason: The streets would be filled with excessive amount of horse manure. Then two inventions suddenly appeared: an electric tram, and a car. Horses disappeared, and the problem was gone. Helsinki has now 600,000 people.

2) Car manufactures put decades of effort to build systems to locate a car in the accuracy enabling real-time navigation based on the car movements, but they failed. The solution arrived from a completely different industry: the GPS. The designers of GPS could not expect the technology turning into commodity, and the price level of the devices collapsing.

3) Encyclopedias vs. Internet global search. It was amazing how quickly most of the encyclopedia business died after the world-wide-web reached the critical mass and the first really global search engines were born. The problem of keeping the information up-to-date disappeared (and many new ones raised).


----------



## Ingenioren

MattiG said:


> If there is a need to "refuel" say 60 kWh in a time comparable to current stay at the pump, max 5 minutes, that would need 0.9 MW per "pump" at the efficiency rate of 80%. Thus, a tiny gas station of 4 pumps would need 3.6 MW at peaks. Such a feed is not easy to be arranged especially in rural areas, and it would probably be pretty expensive.


In Rygge there is a station with 34superchargers meaning it should use upto 2mw if all were occupied by a Tesla charging at 60kw. 60kw is rougly the charging speed for a 50% charged battery. Supposedly there would be installed some 350kw ccs chargers at this same locarion, but they arent there yet. Dont know if any car can accept 350kw, but its a good standard for the future


----------



## MattiG

Ingenioren said:


> In Rygge there is a station with 34superchargers meaning it should use upto 2mw if all were occupied by a Tesla charging at 60kw. 60kw is rougly the charging speed for a 50% charged battery. Supposedly there would be installed some 350kw ccs chargers at this same locarion, but they arent there yet. Dont know if any car can accept 350kw, but its a good standard for the future


If you need 60 kWh @60kW, and the efficiency ratio is 80%, then the charging time is 75 minutes, not 5 minutes.


----------



## Ingenioren

If you drive a tesla most effective only supercharging the lowest 20kwh of the battery at each supercharger, 10 minutes is enough, tough you only have ~100km range. If ccs would deliver 350kw, it could give you ~150km range in 5 minutes.


----------



## MattiG

Ingenioren said:


> If you drive a tesla most effective only supercharging the lowest 20kwh of the battery at each supercharger, 10 minutes is enough, tough you only have ~100km range. If ccs would deliver 350kw, it could give you ~150km range in 5 minutes.


The discussion was to find logistics to enable something resembling to current way of driving car with a combustion engine. Refueling every 150 km is just out of the scope of the comparison. If you need to refuel four times as often than a benzin car at the same service level, then you need a number of those 350 kW hotspots, and we are again back in the discussion about delivering megawatts.

This is school-level of elementary physics only. 

The basic obstacles for wide-spread use of electric cars are the low energy density of current batteries *and *the capabilities of power grids. The energy density of benzin is more than 50 times better than the best lithium batteries (46.7 MJ/kg vs 0.9 MJ/kg). A tankful (50 litres) contains about 470 kWh of energy. Because it can be delivered in about three minutes, one pump can deliver about 10 MW.

Logistics challenges apply to hydrogen, too: Hydrogen has almost three times better energy density than benzin (about 120 MJ/kg), but its volumetric density is lousy: about 8.5 MJ/litre compressed to 700 bar vs 33.6 MJ/litre of benzin. A standard 50 kg hydrogen steel tank contains about 750 grams of hydrogen, thus giving 1,5% of net/gross ratio. Best modern composite-made (expensive) containers have reached the 10% ratio, but the industry-grade tanks approved for automotive use are typically at 4%. Carrying the same amount of energy as 50 litres of benzin, the hydrogen tanks weigh about 400 kg and their volume is about 400 litres.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

^^ I think you are comparing apples and pears here. Electric car drive trains are 3 to 4 times more efficient and also much lighter than those of gasoline cars, and already manufacturers claim to have developed battery technologies with 3 times higher energy density. Furthermore, the most important aspect for a car is volume of the total propulsion system and not weight of the energy carrier. The fact that Tesla and others already with today's battery technology have made ordinary cars with decent range proofs that the energy density of batteries is not a show stopper for electric cars. 

For aviation I think the situation is different, because there weight is really important. Hence, this is an application where I believe hydrogen will be a potent alternative, even if the overall efficiency of the energy chain is lower than for batteries. As you point out, hydrogen has a very high energy to weight density. Also the volumetric energy density is higher if you use liquid hydrogen (LH) (around 10 MJ/l), and more importantly, cryogenic tanks can be made much lighter than high pressure tanks.. Although LH is no good solution for private cars, liquid hydrogen is a viable solution for commercial air planes. An added advantage compared with the electric alternative is that jet engines can be used. See this report for a more thorough study on LH planes some years back: 
http://www.fzt.haw-hamburg.de/pers/Scholz/dglr/hh/text_2004_02_26_Cryoplane.pdf



MattiG said:


> I do not know. Most probably something which is completely different from what we currently understand. Such disruptions seldom are foreseeable by Joe Averages like me. I believe that something revolutionary will arise instead of waiting for the fruits of the current evolutionary thinking.
> 
> Examples:
> .


Your examples were more about market adaption than technology development. A great many bright people have been working for centuries on both propulsion and energy carriers, and if we can draw any conclusions from history, it is that development of a completely new propulsion system is likely to need decades of research, followed by decades of product development and market pilots before anything really can start to become mainstream. Currently, I see no sustainable contender to electric cars and possibly hydrogen (less likely) using the current road infrastructure, hence a "miracle alternative" is probably 50 years away, by which time I assume all perceived problems with electric cars have been dealt with.


----------



## OulaL

MattiG said:


> Car manufactures put decades of effort to build systems to locate a car in the accuracy enabling real-time navigation based on the car movements, but they failed.


Slightly off-topic, but that's the technology I used while doing my military service, as a positioner for the field artillery. The positioning device was mounted on a Toyota Landcruiser, was a cubic box (each side about half a metre) and claimedly worth FIM 2M as of 1999. Not only did it calculate its position based on its movements (which obviously were the same as the movements of the vehicle), it also calculated the direction of the north based on its rotation while stationary (when it obviously was the same as the rotation of the earth).

The technology exists but during the time of GPS it doesn't have many civilian uses, given its size and price. It does have militarian uses for a non-NATO country, which probably cannot rely on GPS in a potential crisis.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

*E6 Sørkjosen Tunnel*

The 4.6 kilometer long Sørkjos Tunnel of E6 in Troms opens to traffic tomorrow. It bypasses a low, but exposed mountain pass.

This is one of two tunnel projects of E6 in the region, there is another tunnel opening in 2018 north of Skibotn.


----------



## OulaL

^^ It doesn't really matter how high above the sea level the mountain pass is; what matters is whether it is above the tree line or not. And when going far north, as we are in this case, the tree line tends to come lower and lower.


----------



## Galro

A 1964 movie about road construction in the Oslo area. The audio is in Norwegian.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

^^ Interesting. Luckily our part of the world has moved a bit ahead with respect HSE. That road director must have felt pretty important with his "Radio phone" back in 1963!


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Free ferry rides for electric cars will end on 1 March at the Fjord1 ferry operator. Electric cars will pay 50% of the full ticket price. 

Fjord1 is the most important ferry operator in southwestern Norway.

Free ferry rides end:

* Møre og Romsdal: Molde-Vestnes, Festøya-Solavågen, Halsa-Kanestraumen.
* Sogn og Fjordane: All ferries
* Hordaland: Halhjem-Sandvikvåg
* Rogaland: Arsvågen-Mortavika

http://www.fjord1.no/ferje/endring-i-elbil-takst


----------



## Ingenioren

256073435


----------



## Galro

The new 1185m long Vangbergtunnelen close to Stryn was opened today.

Old and new road. 


















https://www.vareveger.no/artikler/endelig-gul-stripe-i-midten/431695


----------



## ChrisZwolle

I believe that is on Fv. 60 between Innvik and Olden.


----------



## Galro

Proposed new fv. 47 at Karmøy.


----------



## MichiH

MichiH said:


> *E18:* Sky – Larvik 3km (2013 to March 2018) – project – map


There will be a public day on 19th March (Monday!). One lane per direction will be opened that week. The remaining lanes will be put into service after Easter (early April).

https://www.vegvesen.no/Europaveg/e...lt-apnes-pa-farrisbrua-og-i-martineastunnelen


----------



## Galro

Construction update on the Hålogaland suspension bridge.


























































































http://www.infoto.no/Hålogalandsbrua/i-N767mxq


----------



## Galro

Ryfast construction update from earlier this month.




































https://www.facebook.com/pg/ryfast/photos/?ref=page_internal


----------



## Ingenioren

260937437


----------



## suburbicide

A truck hit a car while changing lanes on E6 near Sarpsborg. The truck driver didn't notice the accident and kept driving for 1.5 km while pushing the car in front of the truck. 










A video of the incident from various road cameras can be seen here:

https://www.nrk.no/ostfold/vogntog-dyttet-personbil-i-1_5-kilometer-pa-e6-1.13972663


----------



## belerophon

suburbicide said:


> A truck hit a car while changing lanes on E6 near Sarpsborg. The truck driver *didn't notice the accident* and kept driving for 1.5 km while pushing the car in front of the truck.


Hummm.....

Well its snowy, maybe the impact was not that hard, because the car was slower under this conditions? But at speed of 80, the truck drove for more than one minute. If it was slower it took even more time.... Also you could see the car's lights very well. 

Next point is, what the truck carried. If it was loaded with some 40 tons, well the car was not much in comparison. But still the truck is rolling, whilst the car is not, it's tires are used as Eraser 

One must be very dizzy not to mention that.


----------



## italystf

You may not notice if you're pushing a car with your truck, if your alchool level is particularly high.


----------



## General Huo

Galro said:


> Construction update on the Hålogaland suspension bridge.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.infoto.no/Hålogalandsbrua/i-N767mxq


Building by Chinese?

https://jichanglulu.wordpress.com/2...the-first-chinese-built-bridge-in-the-arctic/


----------



## MichiH

MichiH said:


> MichiH said:
> 
> 
> 
> *E18:* Sky – Larvik 3km (2013 to March 2018) – project – map
> 
> 
> 
> There will be a public day on 19th March (Monday!). One lane per direction will be opened that week. The remaining lanes will be put into service after Easter (early April).
> 
> https://www.vegvesen.no/Europaveg/e...lt-apnes-pa-farrisbrua-og-i-martineastunnelen
Click to expand...

It was reported yesterday that the new route should be opened 2x1 today. It will be opened 2x2 in late April.

https://www.vegvesen.no/Europaveg/e...-i-larvik-legges-om-natt-til-lordag-for-paske


----------



## ChrisZwolle

An avalanche went over E39 / Rv. 15 east of Nordfjordeid. Near a place called "Skredestranda", doesn't that mean something like "avalanche beach"?


----------



## Stafangr

ChrisZwolle said:


> An avalanche went over E39 / Rv. 15 east of Nordfjordeid. Near a place called "Skredestranda", doesn't that mean something like "avalanche beach"?


I'd translate it to Avalanche/Landslide Shore, but yeah.


----------



## Galro

New Ureddplassen rest stop at the Helgeland coast.



























https://www.archdaily.com/890837/ne...ee-landmarks-on-norways-scenic-tourist-trails


----------



## Galro

General Huo said:


> Building by Chinese?
> 
> https://jichanglulu.wordpress.com/2...the-first-chinese-built-bridge-in-the-arctic/


They got the contract on the steel construction for the bridge.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

Stafangr said:


> I'd translate it to Avalanche/Landslide Shore, but yeah.


I would argue that "beach" in fact is a more precise translation of the Norwegian "strand". Strand is btw also a word used in English, pretty much with identical meaning to the Norwegian one and the more common "beach". There are several "strands" along the coast of the British isles, maybe named so by the Norse invaders about a millenium ago.

As indicated by Stafangr, "skred" is used for any type of slide, it being e.g. land, rock or clay slide or an avalanche. When the type of slide is not obvious (it seldom is in Norway ;-) ) you put the name of the sliding mass in front of "skred" if you want to be more clear, e.g. avalanche = snøskred (snow slide).

Back on topic: There has been hundres of avalanches in Norway lately, in particular in Northern Norway, isolating many local communities. And more snow is forecasted.....
https://www.vg.no/nyheter/innenriks...paasken-situasjonen-har-vaert-svaert-krevende


----------



## Agent 006

DEL


----------



## Agent 006

DEL


----------



## Agent 006

DEL


----------



## Corvinus

Hi there. Can anyone familiar with road tolls inform if on the main road between *Alta* and the *Nordkapp* (E6 - E69), as well as the rest of Magerøya, there are any road tolls charged, and where?

I just shot through a rental car conditions documentation and they mention that "not included in the rental price is a daily road toll sum of NOK 87.50, covering the majority of applicable toll roads and an unlimited number of toll spots/crossings". I do not get from this context if this daily amount is always applicable, or only if you actually drive across tolled stretches?


----------



## ChrisZwolle

http://www.autopass.no/

There are no tolls on E6/E69 between Alta and Nordkapp according to the Autopass website. The North Cape Tunnel became de-tolled in 2012.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

Information on road tolls in Norway can be found here: https://www.vegvesen.no/en/vehicles/professional-transport/road-financing

(including this map: https://www.vegvesen.no/_attachment/2213357/binary/1244353?fast_title=Tolling+projects+in+Norway.pdf )


----------



## Galro

E16 Bjørum-Skaret.


----------



## Agent 006

*List of new motorway or expressway sections with actual or expected opening dates* 

- Norway:
*NEW* *Rv. 3 /rv. 25:* Tønset - Åkroken ca. 14 km (June 2018 - November 2020)

Project: https://www.vegvesen.no/Riksveg/rv3og25lotenelverum


----------



## ChrisZwolle

The PPP contract for Rv. 3 / Rv. 25 has been signed yesterday. 

In a timespan of 29 months they will construct 15.2 kilometers of 2x2 motorway and 10.4 kilometers of 2x1 road with passing lanes. They call it the fastest construction project. 

The contract has a value of 5.5 billion NOK (some € 580 million). It is a 20 year concession for the construction, financing and maintenance over that period. It is the first PPP road project in Norway in nearly 10 years.


----------



## IceCheese

^^Considering it's quite the detour, I wonder if the Løten bypass will save you any time at all. Ending in a roundabout in Elverum is also a big let down.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

The alignment is probably a result of the planning process, where a large range of factors are considered, and many parties are heard. I suspect the main reason was the view of the locals, who mainly are concerned with the Elverum-Hamar link (rv 25). For the purpose of Rv 3 alone, I think an alignment east of Løten would have been much better. They should also have cut the Elverum corner, i. e. move the road further away (westwards) from Elverum.

In any case, it is scandalous that sections of the project, in particular Tønset - Ommangsvollen, in 2018 are not constructed as full motorway. I wish Nye Veier had had their hands on also this project....


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

This map already posted by Kjello0 in the Norwegian section shows possible alignments for a future E-39 west of Trondheim. Motorway with 110 km/h speed limit (currently maximum in Norway) seems only possible by a total realignment of the current highway, which was completed as late as 2005.


----------



## Galro

New Tana bridge construction update.


















http://www.bygg.no/article/1357274


----------



## ChrisZwolle

*E18 Ørje*

E18 forms an east-west route through southern Norway, from Kristiansand to the Swedish border at Ørje. The Østfold section has been upgraded to a controlled-access highway. The most recent section opened in 2017 at Ørje. Here are some photos I took last week during a coffee break.

1. E18 towards Sweden. The border lies about 5 kilometers to the east.

E18 Ørje by European Roads, on Flickr

2. E18 to Ski. Two T-intersections have been replaced by two partial interchanges.

E18 Ørje-2 by European Roads, on Flickr

3. The bridge of Fv. 21 over E18 forms a nice landmark for the town of Ørje.

Fylkesvei 21 Ørje by European Roads, on Flickr

4. Fylkesvei 21.

Fylkesvei 21 Ørje-2 by European Roads, on Flickr

5. 

Fylkesvei 21 Ørje-3 by European Roads, on Flickr


----------



## ChrisZwolle

*Porsgrunn bridges*

Two bridges span the Frierfjord south of Porsgrunn, Telemark.

The Brevik Bridge is a suspension bridge built in 1962.


Brevik bru-1 by European Roads, on Flickr


Brevik bru-2 by European Roads, on Flickr

The Grenland Bridge is a cable-stayed bridge built in 1996. E18 runs across it.


Grenland Bridge-1 by European Roads, on Flickr


Grenland Bridge-2 by European Roads, on Flickr


----------



## Galro

Upgrade of Salhusvegen in Haugesund.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

*E18 Rugtvedt - Dørdal*

An update video of the E18 motorway under construction from Rugtvedt to Dørdal, which is south of Porsgrunn/Skien. It will be completed in late 2019.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

*E18 Knapstad - Redtvedt*

The E18 motorway section from Knapstad to Redtvedt opened to traffic on 26 November 2016, extending the high-standard E18 into Akershus. There is still some 15 kilometers missing to E6.


Jarenkrysset

E18 Østfold-1 by European Roads, on Flickr

No exit numbers

E18 Østfold-3 by European Roads, on Flickr

Distance tableaux

E18 Østfold-4 by European Roads, on Flickr

Elvestadkrysset.

E18 Østfold-7 by European Roads, on Flickr


E18 Østfold-9 by European Roads, on Flickr


E18 Østfold-10 by European Roads, on Flickr

Akershus. I've been to every fylke in Southern Norway on this trip, from Vest-Agder and Rogaland to Trøndelag and Hedmark.

E18 Østfold-11 by European Roads, on Flickr


E18 Østfold-12 by European Roads, on Flickr


----------



## Uppsala

ChrisZwolle said:


> No exit numbers
> 
> E18 Østfold-3 by European Roads, on Flickr




This looks strange! But it look like they are going to put exitnumbers on that signs later? The signs look like they are made for that.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

ChrisZwolle said:


> No exit numbers


As you probably have noticed, the Norwegian system for exit (or actually intersection) numbering is not ideal. Not only is it sequential and not milage based, but it is in one case (E6) restarting, and large parts of the country, including E18 in Østfold and Western and Northern Norway at large, are not included at all.

An overview over the numbering system can be found here: https://www.vegvesen.no/trafikkinfo...05595b88&fast_title=kryssnummereringene+(pdf)

As you can see, intersection number 2 of E18 is in Oslo, relatively close to the city center, which means, that if the numbering is to be extended to Østfold, the numbering has to restart also here.

With regards to flexibility, it is btw not given that a milage system is to be preferred everywhere in Norway, as distances still may change significantly as new highways are built. I would still prefer a distance based to a sequence based system, though.



ChrisZwolle said:


> I've been to every fylke in Southern Norway on this trip, from Vest-Agder and Rogaland to Trøndelag and Hedmark.


Impressive, but it means you still have to come back for the biggest adventure for the motorist, Northern Norway ;-)


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Northern Norway will definitely be my next destination in Scandinavia. But I think I will have to travel in July for better weather? Normally I would travel in June or early September. September is too late, but June could be cold up north. I was talking to a Dutch couple who were coming from Lofoten in early June and they had snow. 

If I go up north I will skip southern Norway and drive straight up E6 / Rv. 3 to get to Trondheim and beyond. Some people drive E4 north but having the sun in your back means better views on the scenery, so going north in Norway and south in Sweden looks better to me than the other way around.

Though many people say that Nordkapp is overrated.


----------



## ElviS77

^^
Northern Norway is spectacular, but going with expectations regarding weather is optimistic… June can be fantastic or horrible, the same goes for September... or virtually any other month. The chances for sunny and warm are better in July, but it's certainly not a given (the inland parts of southern Nordland county are better climate-wise, but considerably less scenic). If you are really lucky, you'll see the midnight sun every night and daytime temperatures rise above 20 degrees. If you're unlucky, there'll be clouds and rain every day and double-digit temperatures will be non-existant. Most likely, something inbetween no matter if you choose June, July or August, at least… It'll be a trip for a lifetime anyways!


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

I guess when to go is a matter of taste. June is the lightest month, and I think on average it is also slightly dryer than July, which on the other hand is warmer (see statistics for e.g. Tromsø here: https://www.yr.no/place/Norway/Troms/Tromsø/Tromsø/statistics.html?spr=eng )

With regards to Nordkapp I tend to agree, it is the road leading to Nordkapp that is most interesting. Often the less famous areas (e.g. Senja or Nordkyn) could be as least as spectactular as the more famous areas "nearby" (Lofoten or Nordkapp).

PS: Oh, and agree with ElviS. But in both my longer trips to Northern Norway I had sunny weather for more or less three weeks ;-)


----------



## ElviS77

My recommendations are many: Helgeland coast, Lofoten and Vesterålen, Senja and other islands in Troms county and of course Finnmark as a whole. Nordkapp is spectacular, but crowded, and not necessarily as obvious a goal as many people think. I'd rather consider the Varanger peninsula, particularly the northern coast and Vardø. In addition, the Russian border at Grense Jakobselv (and Pasvik) is extraordinary. All of these things, though, require time. Distances are massive and road quality varies: Expect anything from curvy single-lane tracks to decent, fairly modern 90 km/h sections. You can drive something like 600-800 kms in one day on the main roads through Finnmark without wearing yourself completely out, but as a general rule, I'd recommend shorter stages.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

I traveled to Norway in 2014, 2016 and 2018, all in June and all with great weather (virtually no rain). Though I am currently in the position to change destinations at any time, until a few days before I left, I wanted to go to Spain but the weather didn't improve there so I changed my plans to Norway. Already having considerable knowledge of Norway, I did not need to have to do much detailed research for destinations. Usually I just plan the first few days and then just see what happens after. 

Usually I go camping, but in northern Norway a cabin (hytte) may be a better solution. Do you need to book those cabins days in advance during the high season? The last two weeks I've noticed most campsites had plenty of available cabins, but it wasn't summer vacation yet.


----------



## metasmurf

From my experience, you can get lower standard cabins with no running water without much foresight except for Lofoten. Otherwise you also have AirBNB where you can get away cheaply if you don't care much about standard/location. 

If you don't want to drive the whole Fv 17 I would recommend taking of E6 in MosjÃ¸en and go on Fv 78 and then onto Fv 17 towards Sandnessjöen to see the Helgeland bridge. Then you can drive back to E6, or take the Levang - Nesna ferry (takes 25 minutes) ,continue on Fv 17, take Fv 12 to Mo I rana and back to E6 again, or continue north on Fv17 all the way to Bodö . There are two more ferries on that route though where the Kilboghavn-Jektvik ferry takes 65 minutes unfortunately. If the whether is good it's definitely worth it, but you can't go wrong with E6 over Saltfjellet either.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

If you only can make one pass through Northern Norway, Chris, I would advise you to take the whole Rv 17, even if I know you hate ferries. However, in my subjective and probably patriotic opinion I would have two passes through Northern Norway, which in the case of Nordland would mean E6 + Rv 17, rather than returning via Finland and Sweden. The scenery is well worth the extra hours and cost. Remember that the sun comes from every direction up north during the summer, it only depends on what hour of the day you are driving ;-)

In general weather is not extreme during summer in Northern Norway, at least from a Norwegian perspective. In inner parts of e.g. Finnmark it can be downright hot, but as Elvis mentioned you can never now how the weather turn out. On the other hand, whether can also be quite harsh in parts of southern Norway during summer, especially in the mountains and along the coast. Whether you would enjoy camping in Northern Norway would depend on your attitude, luck of wheather, and equipment, roughly in that order. In any case I would have brought a tent for flexibility, and sought shelter if you are fed up with rain. It is also my experience that accomodation in most places would be available on rather short notice. For added flexibility, you should perhaps also consider the network of the Norwegian trekking association. https://english.dnt.no/ They will always welcome you. Most, but not all, of their 550 cabins require some hiking though, and a membership/rental of key might be neccessary.

One thing that you maybe should consider when camping is also that insects can be a surprising nuisance for the unprepared. In particular, the mosquitos of inner Finnmark are infamous for being aggressive, and I can confirm that their reputation is not unfounded.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Thanks for the tips 

Today it snowed on the high mountain passes in Southern Norway.

A week ago I drove here with +22 degrees at Hardangervidda:


----------



## MattiG

54°26′S 3°24′E;149567521 said:


> If you only can make one pass through Northern Norway, Chris, I would advise you to take the whole Rv 17, even if I know you hate ferries. However, in my subjective and probably patriotic opinion I would have two passes through Northern Norway, which in the case of Nordland would mean E6 + Rv 17, rather than returning via Finland and Sweden. The scenery is well worth the extra hours and cost. Remember that the sun comes from every direction up north during the summer, it only depends on what hour of the day you are driving ;-)
> 
> In general weather is not extreme during summer in Northern Norway, at least from a Norwegian perspective. In inner parts of e.g. Finnmark it can be downright hot, but as Elvis mentioned you can never now how the weather turn out. On the other hand, whether can also be quite harsh in parts of southern Norway during summer, especially in the mountains and along the coast. Whether you would enjoy camping in Northern Norway would depend on your attitude, luck of wheather, and equipment, roughly in that order. In any case I would have brought a tent for flexibility, and sought shelter if you are fed up with rain. It is also my experience that accomodation in most places would be available on rather short notice. For added flexibility, you should perhaps also consider the network of the Norwegian trekking association. https://english.dnt.no/ They will always welcome you. Most, but not all, of their 550 cabins require some hiking though, and a membership/rental of key might be neccessary.
> 
> One thing that you maybe should consider when camping is also that insects can be a surprising nuisance for the unprepared. In particular, the mosquitos of inner Finnmark are infamous for being aggressive, and I can confirm that their reputation is not unfounded.


I have made quite a number of trips to the northern Norway, without any trouble on finding accomodation during the June-August season. In order to save money, better to keep some distance to places close to Nordkapp.

I recommend staying in cabins instead of in a tent. Quite few camping sites there have a horizontal area for tents. In addition, waking up at 3 in the morning because of freezing cold is quite a harsh experience. Of course, if you own accessories suitable for arctic hiking, then no issue.

For the mosquitoes, I use to take three proactive defence actions, all based on chemistry: 1) antihistamin pills to prevent the itch, 2) mosquito repellent for the skin (as strong as possible, not those ones recommended to kids), 3) insect killers to manage the bugs indoors.


----------



## Corvinus

ChrisZwolle said:


> E18 Østfold-12 by European Roads, on Flickr


Norwegian drivers: who has priority here if two vehicles arrive at the merging point the same time?
(According to Hungarian highway code, it would be the one coming on the right lane, comparably to the "right-before-left" default rule at road crossings not signed otherwise. This is not widely known, however, since such merges are rare. Mostly, one of the lanes simply ends so its users have to change in another one)


----------



## Galro

Corvinus said:


> Norwegian drivers: who has priority here if two vehicles arrive at the merging point the same time?


None. Both are required to yield.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Almost every Danish onramp has such a merge. I think it's not a good solution anymore, traffic is often too busy to make an efficient merge without disrupting traffic across all lanes because there is no merging lane.


----------



## metasmurf

*Bjarkøyforbindelsene construction update*

https://vimeo.com/275639902


----------



## xrtn2

Norway the only european country that has yellow centerlines :cheers:


----------



## ChrisZwolle

*E134 Haukelifjell*

The zoning plans for the E134 across Haukelifjell have been published.

A 46 kilometer section of E134 will be upgraded, from Seljestad in the west to Vågsli in the east. 30 kilometers of E134 will be tunneled, including 2 tunnels of circa 12 kilometers long. These tunnels will bypass the existing 1960s Røldal Tunnel (4.7 km) and Haukeli Tunnel (5.7 km).


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

MattiG said:


> I have made quite a number of trips to the northern Norway, without any trouble on finding accomodation during the June-August season. In order to save money, better to keep some distance to places close to Nordkapp.
> 
> I recommend staying in cabins instead of in a tent. Quite few camping sites there have a horizontal area for tents. In addition, waking up at 3 in the morning because of freezing cold is quite a harsh experience. Of course, if you own accessories suitable for arctic hiking, then no issue.
> 
> For the mosquitoes, I use to take three proactive defence actions, all based on chemistry: 1) antihistamin pills to prevent the itch, 2) mosquito repellent for the skin (as strong as possible, not those ones recommended to kids), 3) insect killers to manage the bugs indoors.


I guess you are kind of proving my point (the first consideration is the attitude ;-) )

Otherwise I would not turn my skin into a chemical dump, but rather use e.g. mosquito nets or simply avoid camping in inner Finnmark (~=Finnmarksvidda) or similar areas in Northern Finland / Sweden altogether on windless days. Along the coast of Northern Norway mosquitos are generally not a (big) problem.


ChrisZwolle said:


> Almost every Danish onramp has such a merge. I think it's not a good solution anymore, traffic is often too busy to make an efficient merge without disrupting traffic across all lanes because there is no merging lane.


I guess acceleration lanes, if that is what you mean, is a good thing regardless of right of way rules.


xrtn2 said:


> Norway the only european country that has yellow centerlines :cheers:


Not quite, some countries use yellow center lines for temporary markings, or in the case of Finland, for blind curves. I think more countries, at least Iceland, used to have them.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

54°26′S 3°24′E;149688773 said:


> Along the coast of Northern Norway mosquitos are generally not a (big) problem.


That's good to know. So far I had almost no problems with mosquitoes in June in 2014, 2016 and 2018, even in inland areas (including Sweden). Only one campsite in Setesdal had lots of mosquitoes.


----------



## MattiG

ChrisZwolle said:


> That's good to know. So far I had almost no problems with mosquitoes in June in 2014, 2016 and 2018, even in inland areas (including Sweden). Only one campsite in Setesdal had lots of mosquitoes.


The mosquito population varies a lot across years. One year they are almost nonexistent and the next year they are big and aggressive and everywhere. A wind pushes them away, and therefore they are less harmful on seaside and above the tree limit. They love bushes and spruce woods. The more north you go the better to prepare.

Mosquitos are manageable. Somewhat bigger trouble is caused by black flies and biting midges which exist in the north. The defence mechanisms are similar to which work for mosquitos. They are small. Thus, a mosquito net does not always work.


----------



## Galro

Renderings of the planned Leirfjord bridge at e6 in Northern Norway.




































https://www.norconsult.no/prosjekter/leirfjordbrua/


----------



## Bjørne

ChrisZwolle said:


> If I go up north I will skip southern Norway and drive straight up E6 / Rv. 3 to get to Trondheim and beyond.


Instead of going E6 and Rv. 3 all the way up to Trondheim, I would recommend taking Fv. 27 from Ringebu to Folldal, which is a national tourist road[/URL]. From Folldal, you could either take the shortest route back onto E6, or take a detour via Tynset and Røros. I drove from Røros to Oslo via Fv. 27 in six hours in 2015, and it was an absolutely beautiful trip.


----------



## ElviS77

^^
I agree. Fv 27 through Rondane is really pretty, and fv 30 over Røros isn't bad either. Many Norwegian main roads are really nice, of course, but even so, there are almost always considerably better detours available (as someone already mentioned, fv 17 at Helgeland is way better than E6 Saltfjellet, even though the latter is quite exceptional…). It simply depends on how much time one has, you need quite a lot of that if you insist on covering all the juicy bits of Norway's road network.


----------



## Ingenioren

I like going via Fv26-Fv705, it has 0 traffic and road is decent standard so it's quite fast going north.


----------



## MattiG

ElviS77 said:


> It simply depends on how much time one has, you need quite a lot of that if you insist on covering all the juicy bits of Norway's road network.


Two months could be a starting point.

Traveling to Norway to find the most fluent route from point A to point B sounds pretty controversial to me. I have made 20+ trips to Norway, and my route planning approach has been very successful: The more windy road it is on the map, the more scenic the road is. (Does not apply to many routes over Finnmarksvidda in the North, like E6 Sennaland and Fv98 Ifjordsfjellet, which are straight but very scenic.)


----------



## Suburbanist

Which are the next tunnel tolls in line to be abolished after revenue targets are met?


----------



## ChrisZwolle

In most cases the toll component is paid off after approximately 15 years, give or take. 

Many toll roads (except for the toll rings) opened in the past 5-7 years, so it will be a while before we see a massive de-tolling. Around 2025 there will be lots of toll roads paid back. 

The Svinesund Bridge may be next to become de-tolled? There is also a toll plaza on E6 north of Moss that may become toll-free soon.


----------



## MattiG

ChrisZwolle said:


> The Svinesund Bridge may be next to become de-tolled? There is also a toll plaza on E6 north of Moss that may become toll-free soon.


Norwegian newspapers reported two weeks ago about the estimated closure of the toll booths in 2021, if the current traffic volume growth continues.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

It's a bit tricky to compare percentages, if the base level is not mentioned. 

For example in 2016 there were 70.9 billion passenger kilometers on the road system and 4.5 billion passenger kilometers on the rail system in Norway. So a 1% growth results in very different numbers for each. 

For example, a 1% growth at the road system is a larger growth in passenger kilometers (+0.7 billion) than a 5% growth among the railways (+0.2 billion).


----------



## Turf

The B1M made a nice compilation:


----------



## ChrisZwolle

*E134 Haukelifjell*

E134 across Haukelifjell in Southern Norway. It is the southernmost main pass between east and west in Norway. I found it more scenic than Rv. 7 across Hardangervidda.


E134 Haukelifjell-3 by European Roads, on Flickr


E134 Haukelifjell-5 by European Roads, on Flickr


E134 Haukelifjell-6 by European Roads, on Flickr


E134 Haukelifjell-7 by European Roads, on Flickr


E134 Haukelifjell-8 by European Roads, on Flickr


E134 Haukelifjell-10 by European Roads, on Flickr


----------



## Galro

Ryfast construction update.






















































https://www.facebook.com/pg/ryfast/photos/?ref=page_internal


----------



## ChrisZwolle

*Riksvei 36*

Tolling begins on a section of riksvei 36 in Telemark on 14 September: the Slåttekås – Årnes section. It is part of an upgrade project that will be completed by that date.

The toll rate is 28 NOK.

http://www.autopass.no/Nyhetsarkiv/oppstart-av-bompengeinnkreving-pa-rv.36-slattekasarnes-i-telemark


----------



## pedrofil

54°26′S 3°24′E;151376689 said:


> Of course, Rogaland, Møre og Romsdal and many other counties might still become annoyed as most fjords, and the most spectacular fjords, would still be outside this new county.


I would agree that M&R probably has the highest percentage of dramatic awesome fjords. But Hordaland and especially S&F have some pretty spectacular ones as well, like Nerøyfjorden and Aurlandsfjorden, and other eastern Sognefjord sidearms. 

But yeah, the name debate is pretty confusing and can be frustrating. But that's just how it is when people have had pretty strong local identities throughout the centuries.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

There are some errors on this sign. First, this is not yet E39, which you don't reach until some 45 km west of this sign. Second, Hjelle and Stryn are not nearly as far apart (it's more like 25 km). And Ålesund is farther away, even with Kvivsvegen.


IMG_4244 by Benjamin Van der Velden, on Flickr


----------



## ChrisZwolle

I received the toll bill for my trips in Norway back in June this week.

The British company Euro Parking Collections is responsible for charging foreign users.

The toll bill was 340 NOK, but they automatically send invoices in EUR, in this case € 36.90, which is € 1.80 higher than the actual current exchange rate. However with credit card payment you can change the currency from EUR to NOK, so you save some € 1.65 on the toll bill. My bank charges € 0.15 per transaction for non-euro payments. 

But most people will think: well, that's convenient, it is automatically in EUR. So they profit some ~5% on each toll invoice.


----------



## havaska

ChrisZwolle said:


> I received the toll bill for my trips in Norway back in June this week.
> 
> The British company Euro Parking Collections is responsible for charging foreign users.
> 
> The toll bill was 340 NOK, but they automatically send invoices in EUR, in this case € 36.90, which is € 1.80 higher than the actual current exchange rate. However with credit card payment you can change the currency from EUR to NOK, so you save some € 1.65 on the toll bill. My bank charges € 0.15 per transaction for non-euro payments.
> 
> But most people will think: well, that's convenient, it is automatically in EUR. So they profit some ~5% on each toll invoice.


I hate that kind of thing. When I use my card abroad, a lot of sales machines try to automatically charge me in GBP instead of the local currency, thus using their exchange rate and making a nice little profit of 5-10%. And if you do charge in the local currency, my card provider charges a fee of roughly 1-2%, which is better but still irritating. 

I just use Revolut now as no fees at all, and I imagine a lot of people who travel a lot are going to move towards these new fintech companies.


----------



## MattiG

ChrisZwolle said:


> I received the toll bill for my trips in Norway back in June this week.
> 
> The British company Euro Parking Collections is responsible for charging foreign users.
> 
> The toll bill was 340 NOK, but they automatically send invoices in EUR, in this case € 36.90, which is € 1.80 higher than the actual current exchange rate. However with credit card payment you can change the currency from EUR to NOK, so you save some € 1.65 on the toll bill. My bank charges € 0.15 per transaction for non-euro payments.
> 
> But most people will think: well, that's convenient, it is automatically in EUR. So they profit some ~5% on each toll invoice.


I would write to the King of Norway and condemn.


----------



## IceCheese

I think it's fair that they send out invoices in your country's local currency right? Sending it in NOK would leave a lot of people with few options, or may turn out expensive if your bank has to do a payment in a different currency than your agreement states. 
I'm not 100 % on how the system works, but doesn't the EPC let you pay beforehand by credit card at their website, avoiding you to wait for an invoice?


----------



## ChrisZwolle

You can pay at the EPC website or make a wire transfer. The bank details for a wire transfer are actually from a bank in Germany, which is evidently a subsidiary of Skandinaviska Enskilda Banken (SEB).


----------



## OulaL

Depending on the road toll operator, you can also pay on some service stations.


----------



## MattiG

IceCheese said:


> I'm not 100 % on how the system works, but doesn't the EPC let you pay beforehand by credit card at their website, avoiding you to wait for an invoice?


Yes, it lets. I have never understood why someone would take such an action.

What comes to the differences in exchange rates, it is good to understand that EPC acts like the credit card operators: the rate is determined at the day of handling, not at the transaction day. The EUR to NOK rate has fluctuated quite heavily during the last few months:


----------



## ChrisZwolle

*Ytre Steinsund bru*

The government has allocated money for the subsidy of the ferry to Ytre Sula to be paid to the municipal government of Solund for a period of 40 years. This could finance a fixed link to the island.

https://www.regjeringen.no/no/aktuelt/ytre-steinsund-bru-kan-fa-midlar-i-40-ar/id2610804/

Solund is a municipality of less than 800 people, with my guess being under 200 people on the island of Ytre Sula. There are no real towns or settlements on this island, just some spread out houses. It's a huge project for this tiny rural island. The cost is estimated at 690 million NOK / € 70 million. The current ferry usage is some 60 vehicles per day.

It's quite a large bridge actually, with a 265 + 240 meter main span, which is fairly long for a concrete box girder bridge.










The location of Solund municipality:









The planned bridge location:


----------



## Stuu

^^

I had a look on GSV at the island, it looks absolutely perfect as a film location for fantasy stuff like Game of Thrones or that sort of thing. Also amazing that they would consider spending €70m for ~200 residents, €330k each!


----------



## ChrisZwolle

The outer islands are quite unusual, extremely barren and terrain not suitable for large-scale development / settlement. It appears to me that not many (foreign) tourists will travel to these islands. 

Another question: is the 110 km/h speed limit on motorways still a summer-only thing, or year-round? In 2015 it was decided that 110 km/h would only apply during the summer, and they would be reverted to 100 km/h during the winter. Some sections have electronic signs that regulate the speed limit, but others have regular signs.


----------



## IceCheese

^^They still do. One example being the E6 south of Oslo where they have to manually change signs two times per year.


----------



## Ingenioren

From Moss to Ås, in Østfold its 110 even in winter.


----------



## suburbicide

^^

Ås to Moss is still 100 km/h in winter (geography quibble: it’s mostly in Akershus, not Østfold).

Most other 110 km/h sections are year around, including south of Moss. There are only a couple of motorway sections that have the reduced 100 km/h winter speed limits.


----------



## metasmurf

What's mind boggling to me when it comes to the 80km/h speed limit in Norway is that a super narrow curvy road (4.5-5 meters wide?) with hilltops where you could meet a truck at any moment (example https://goo.gl/maps/Yj9e3ZTyRhG2 ) that genuinely feels dangerous to drive on has the same speed limit as some newly constructed 8.5m wide roads with smooth curves and great visibility (example https://goo.gl/maps/dxqpB7nouC72). It makes no sense :lol:


----------



## ChrisZwolle

While many roads in Norway are narrow and substandard, if you implement 70 km/h as a default, you can expect many good 80 sections to become 70 km/h as well. 

In Flanders they recently reduced the general speed limit from 90 to 70 km/h "since many sections were already at 70 anyway". However in practice many remaining higher standard 90 roads went to 70 km/h as well.


----------



## g.spinoza

I think you can set a general speed and then make room for exceptions with _higher _ limit possible, like in Italy, where general limit on motorways is 130 but the law makes 150 stretches possible.


----------



## ElviS77

^^
This is already the norm in Norway. There are only two default speed limits in Norway - 50 and 80 km/h (we do not have a default motorway limit). Higher posted limits are 90, 100 and 110 km/h.


----------



## IceCheese

^^Only 90 is used on 2-lane roads.


----------



## ElviS77

ChrisZwolle said:


> While many roads in Norway are narrow and substandard, if you implement 70 km/h as a default, you can expect many good 80 sections to become 70 km/h as well.


It is certainly possible, but with the road authorities' departure from the traditional "default speed limit no matter what" of earlier years, a change might even do good. Even though we are safety-obsessed (a good thing, btw), there is also a clear understanding that a modern and efficiant road network will have to include undivided roads and that these roads need to see a higher limit than 70 km/h. New national 2-lane roads are now typically designed for 90 km/h (already a break from default).

Nonetheless, my main concern is more logical speed limits rather than lowering the default limits. There ought to be a difference between a brand new ten-metre-wide highway and a twisty four-metre gravel road.


----------



## OulaL

54°26′S 3°24′E;153683188 said:


> The German text on the sign says easternmost point in EU, though, and the English version says simply the "The easternmost point", whatever that means. Neither mentions Europe or continental Europe. The two other languages (pressumably Finnish and Russian) someone else must dechipher ;-)



Finnish and Russian say pretty much the same. No mention of EU, Europe or continents.


----------



## MattiG

OulaL said:


> Finnish and Russian say pretty much the same. No mention of EU, Europe or continents.


Anyway, making any conclusions on an old photo about an old unofficial sign is xxxxxx (select an arbitrary word).


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

^^ I am not sure if anyone made any general conclusion about Finland or anything else. Myself at least I just commented on the sign ;-)

With regards to general speed limits, it is a serious misunderstanding to think that you legally can drive 80 km/h on any unsigned windy, narrow, slippery and/or bumpy country road. You are never allowed to drive anything but a safe speed under the given conditions, and be able to both control your vehicle and stop in time if something unexpected happens, both with good margins. Sometimes 80 km/h (or higher) is a safe speed, at other times or locations it could be 40. If you are involved in an accident you'd better be able to argue that your speed indeed was safe.

As it is, the upper speed of almost all major roads are already signposted, often down to ridiculous low levels, like 70 km/h on major rural highways with decent standard even at periods with almost no traffic. Lowering the speed limit of all unregulated country roads down to 70, where there often in practice are no controls, only serves to increase disrespect of the law, IMO.


----------



## ElviS77

54°26′S 3°24′E;153835464 said:


> With regards to general speed limits, it is a serious misunderstanding to think that you legally can drive 80 km/h on any unsigned windy, narrow, slippery and/or bumpy country road. You are never allowed to drive anything but a safe speed under the given conditions, and be able to both control your vehicle and stop in time if something unexpected happens, both with good margins. Sometimes 80 km/h (or higher) is a safe speed, at other times or locations it could be 40. If you are involved in an accident you'd better be able to argue that your speed indeed was safe.


This is of course true, but I'm not entirely certain it is well understood amongst the motoring public. I think posted limits - higher and lower than default limits - will make people better understand the relationship between road quality, safety and speed. In addition, with more foreign drivers on our roads, drivers less schooled in what the Norwegian default limit really means, differenciating speed limits according to other parameters than "urban" and "rural" is clearly helpful.



54°26′S 3°24′E;153835464 said:


> As it is, the upper speed of almost all major roads are already signposted, often down to ridiculous low levels, like 70 km/h on major rural highways with decent standard even at periods with almost no traffic. Lowering the speed limit of all unregulated country roads down to 70, where there often in practice are no controls, only serves to increase disrespect of the law, IMO.


The way I see it, one of the biggest problems with Norwegian drivers, is that default speed limits have lead to a default mindset. 80 km/h posted translates into 90-100 km/h driving speed, no matter what road they're on... I'm not a particularly slow driver, nor a speed king, but I do adjust my driving according to road standards and speed limits. As a consequence, there are more people overtaking me on narrow 80 km/h rural roads than on 110 km/h motorways. I think differenciating speed limits more actually may increase respect for speed limits. For me, that's the crux of the matter, not whether the default rural limit is 70 or 80.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

The point is that lowering the general speed limit of rural roads to 70 is the opposite of differentiating.


----------



## ElviS77

^^
Well, no. 

The Swedish system is, for instance, far more sensible in my book, and similar thinking could be a reasonable way forward for Norway as well. But, again, differenciating is far more important to me than 70 or 80 as a default limit. I think I'll leave it at that.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

*E6 Nordnes Tunnel*

The 5.8 kilometer long Nordnes Tunnel of E6 north of Skibotn opened to traffic yesterday.


----------



## alterWhite

scandinavian countries are really digging this colored light for tunnels it seems.


----------



## metasmurf

*E6 Ailegastunnelen / Alta Vest*

Yet another tunnel on E6 will open soon in northern Norway, but this time in Finnmark. Ailegastunnelen, which is 3445 meter long, is the main part of the last stretch in the  E6 Alta Vest-project. The tunnel will make E6 3km shorter. Opening date is 22th of November.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

I wonder how the length of that tunnel (3.4 km) was optimized. It seems like every km of tunnel cuts the E6 length at least 1.5 km, bu the traffic is of course moderate at 1000 AADT.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

E6 and Rv. 3 / Rv. 25 are upgraded to motorways but a "1 mil" (10 km) section of Rv. 25 is not and is a missing link. They say it may be upgraded from the savings of using a PPP project. This would improve Hamar - Elverum traffic.










>> https://www.vegvesen.no/Riksveg/rv3og25lotenelverum/Nyhetsarkiv/samferdselsministeren-pa-besok


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

For the locals the 10 km of Rv 25 Tønset-Hamar will be a missing link. For everyone else the missing link will be the 15 km Rv 3 south of Tønset to Kolomoen (E6), which is the most used / fastest route between Oslo and Trøndelag/Trondheim and most of Nordland. Due to the local daily commuters the Rv 25 has slightly higher traffic, though.


----------



## Gsus

54°26′S 3°24′E;154343446 said:


> For the locals the 10 km of Rv 25 Tønset-Hamar will be a missing link. For everyone else the missing link will be the 15 km Rv 3 south of Tønset to Kolomoen (E6), which is the most used / fastest route between Oslo and Trøndelag/Trondheim and most of Nordland. Due to the local daily commuters the Rv 25 has slightly higher traffic, though.


I would say the 15 km down to Kolomoen is not at missing link unless the measurement is motorway-standard, speed limit or the number of lanes. I`ll agree its not the most future-oriented building Ommangsvollen-Tønset with only two lanes, but traffic volume between Kolomoen and Løten is only half of that of E6 north of Stange, and (north-)east of Myklegard. And only a third of the volume of E6 from Hamar to Brumunddal. The speed limit was until recently 90km/h from Ommangsvollen to Kolomoen and this road has a very descent standard from a Norwegian perspective, the traffic taken into consideration. Its not more than a little over 20 years old, compared to the Rv. 25 which is basically a modernization of roads from the 19th century. Using 1-2 billions on this section is not something I would've prioritized. A different case would have been if Kolomoen-Ommangsvollen was to be built from scratch. The road from Hamar has a much lower standard, lower speed-limit and higher traffic volumes. Even tho it does`nt have the largest national importance, the Rv. 25 is a very important regional road. Also Rv. 4 from Mjøsbrua to Gjøvik needs an upgrade long before Rv. 3 from Kolomoen.


----------



## MichiH

metasmurf said:


> Yet another tunnel on E6 will open soon in northern Norway, but this time in Finnmark. Ailegastunnelen, which is 3445 meter long, is the main part of the last stretch in the  E6 Alta Vest-project. The tunnel will make E6 3km shorter. Opening date is 22th of November.


The Ailegas tunnel was opened on schedule last Thursday, see press release.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

Gsus said:


> I would say the 15 km down to Kolomoen is not at missing link unless the measurement is motorway-standard, speed limit or the number of lanes. I`ll agree its not the most future-oriented building Ommangsvollen-Tønset with only two lanes, but traffic volume between Kolomoen and Løten is only half of that of E6 north of Stange, and (north-)east of Myklegard. And only a third of the volume of E6 from Hamar to Brumunddal. The speed limit was until recently 90km/h from Ommangsvollen to Kolomoen and this road has a very descent standard from a Norwegian perspective, the traffic taken into consideration. Its not more than a little over 20 years old, compared to the Rv. 25 which is basically a modernization of roads from the 19th century. Using 1-2 billions on this section is not something I would've prioritized. A different case would have been if Kolomoen-Ommangsvollen was to be built from scratch. The road from Hamar has a much lower standard, lower speed-limit and higher traffic volumes. Even tho it does`nt have the largest national importance, the Rv. 25 is a very important regional road. Also Rv. 4 from Mjøsbrua to Gjøvik needs an upgrade long before Rv. 3 from Kolomoen.


Probably both (Rv 25 and Rv 3) should be upgraded, but my first point is that Rv 3 is a part of a route of national importance, wheras Rv 25 (and the Rv 4 section you mention) in essence is a local road where trains and other PT should be a good alternative. 
My second point is that Rv 3 indeed is a missing link if you consider that there now will be motorway from Elverum to Tønset, and then again from Kolomoen to Oslo. In the long term, I am a believer of a national motorway network to the regions which could create an alternative to the unsustainable high air traffic. Luckily we have gone a bit in the right directions lately, but indeed it is unfurtunate to leave relatively short gaps like Kolomoen - Tønset. Hence, that is where the national funds should go, leaving the locals to pay for the local projects like Rv 25.

The traffic numbers are up to 8000 AADT for the relevant section of Rv 3 and 10 000 for Rv 25, with a significant larger truck heavy vehicle fraction on the former, btw.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

I drove the entire length of Rv. 3 in June (north to south). Traffic is very light for the most part but passing is difficult in many places on the northern third of the route, as it is relatively curvy. The middle section is straigther and still has light traffic. Traffic volumes seemed to pick up from Rena, and the Rv. 3 / 25 section near Elverum is surprisingly busy after driving several hours with light traffic. 

I wouldn't surprise me if they decide to expand the Kolomoen - Løten section to four lanes in a few years. It will be an obvious missing link once the current PPP project is completed. 

I like how things are going though. As recent as 10 years ago the E6 motorway ended at Gardermoen and they are now extending it past Hamar and working on the next stage to Lillehammer.


----------



## Gsus

54°26′S 3°24′E;154374226 said:


> Probably both (Rv 25 and Rv 3) should be upgraded, but my first point is that Rv 3 is a part of a route of national importance, wheras Rv 25 (and the Rv 4 section you mention) in essence is a local road where trains and other PT should be a good alternative.
> My second point is that Rv 3 indeed is a missing link if you consider that there now will be motorway from Elverum to TÃ¸nset, and then again from Kolomoen to Oslo. In the long term, I am a believer of a national motorway network to the regions which could create an alternative to the unsustainable high air traffic. Luckily we have gone a bit in the right directions lately, but indeed it is unfurtunate to leave relatively short gaps like Kolomoen - TÃ¸nset. Hence, that is where the national funds should go, leaving the locals to pay for the local projects like Rv 25.
> 
> The traffic numbers are up to 8000 AADT for the relevant section of Rv 3 and 10 000 for Rv 25, with a significant larger truck heavy vehicle fraction on the former, btw.


But it still won't be a missing link in the way there's no congestion-problems, low speed limit or low standard. The road is entirely grade separated. I agree that the changes in road standard is unfortunate, but its no problem. The AADT is also less than 7000 (6500 at highest in 2017) the entire way from Ommangsvollen to Kolomoen, and only reach 8000 near Løten, which is on the section that will be a county-road after the road is rerouted via Tønset. I still think Hamar-Tønset is what should be prioritized next, that's where the problems will be after the Rv.3/25-project is opened. Something should be done with the intersection between Rv. 3 and Fv. 24 at Kalsvea (first intersection north of Kolomoen) tho. The geometry on the ramps there is such bad that northbound trucks continue further to E6 at Uthus on Fv. 24, instead of following the signs telling them to drive Rv. 3 south to Kolomoen before turning north.

A national motorway-network would be a nice thing, but I'm all for the smaller upgrades being done in Østerdalen now. The AADT is for long sections 2-3000 and the road is mostly very straight by Norwegian standards


----------



## Kjello0

I'll be very surprised if Kolomoen - Løten is still a two lane road in 20 years.
The minister of transport has all ready suggested building a 17.3 meter 4 lane road with 110 km/h for roads with 6-12 000 AADT.

Vil ha smalare firefelts – og like høg fart

I'll be quite shocked if Kolomoen - Løten isn't one of those stretches.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

The E134 Kongsberg bypass will get a 90 km/h speed limit (partially also 80 and 70 km/h).

Isn't this a bit low? It is partially a four lane controlled-access highway.

https://www.vegvesen.no/Europaveg/Damasen/Nyhetsarkiv/14-7-kilometer-far-90-km-t-fartsgrense


----------



## Tronni

The new section of Rv. 36 from Skyggestein to Skjelbredstrand opened today, bypassing the problematic Brekka-turns.

Here is a video of the construction stage, along with the new part of Fv. 32, if it hasn't been posted before.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

*Fv. 51 Valdresflye*

A couple of photos of Fv. 51 across Valdresflye, the highlands east of Jotunheimen. It is the only paved road in this area.


Valdresflye-2 by European Roads, on Flickr


Valdresflye-1 by European Roads, on Flickr


Valdresflye-4 by European Roads, on Flickr


----------



## MattiG

ChrisZwolle said:


> A couple of photos of Fv. 51 across Valdresflye, the highlands east of Jotunheimen. It is the only paved road in this area.


The view at Valdresflya may be quite different sometimes.


----------



## Suburbanist

I wonder why doesn't Norway spend a bit of the money that goes into tunnels just widening county roads where feasible and relatively cheap.


----------



## MattiG

Suburbanist said:


> I wonder why doesn't Norway spend a bit of the money that goes into tunnels just widening county roads where feasible and relatively cheap.


You seem not to know how the roads were like 30 years ago.


----------



## suburbicide

Suburbanist said:


> I wonder why doesn't Norway spend a bit of the money that goes into tunnels just widening county roads where feasible and relatively cheap.


Simply widening roads is usually not feasible. Curves and gradients need to be improved, which means a partially/completely new alignment.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

And the rocky terrain means you can't simply put an excavator to work as it is in many areas in Europe. Just look how much effort there is in constructing footpaths / bike paths along secondary roads.


----------



## Tronni

The new section of Fv. 32 in Porsgrunn opened today. It bypasses Lilleelvkrysset, which was a known bottleneck. A video of the section's construction phase can be seen a few replies up.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

*Hålogaland Bridge*

The Hålogaland Bridge has been declared open today.


----------



## MichiH

^^ What will happen to the old E6? Will it be closed or even demolished? Or will it be rededicated to a "primære fylkesveier"?


----------



## MattiG

MichiH said:


> ^^ What will happen to the old E6? Will it be closed or even demolished? Or will it be rededicated to a "primære fylkesveier"?


The old E6 from the bridge to E10 will be a fylkesvei. Source: the road plan.


----------



## MichiH

^^ What does "road plan" mean? I only know this: https://www.vegvesen.no/vegkart/veg...3.58648719:7597007.0273474/@609555,7597480,11

And it's not yet updated.


----------



## Kjello0

The regulation plan says so.



> 5.9 Omklassifisering av eksisterende veg
> Vegen fra Narvik og nordover er i dag klassifisert til E6. Ved Trældal kommer E10 ned fra Bjørnefjell/Sverige og fortsetter nordover forbi Bjerkvik ut til Å i Lofoten. Dette medfører at fra Trældal forbi Stormyra og fram til Bjerkvik er vegen klassifisert som E6/E10. Etter bygging av ny E6 vil eksisterende E6 omklassifiseres til fylkesveg på strekningen fra kryss Orneshaugen til kryss avkjøring til Bjørnefjell. Fra kryss ved avkjøring til Bjørnefjell og til Stormyra vil vegen være klassifisert som E10.
> Avkjøringen bak Toppåsen til kommunal veg foreslås å bli kommunal.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

*Riksvei 19*

Rv. 19 becomes toll-free on 19 December. The toll was 33 NOK for passenger cars, charged since 4 January 2010 to pay for the upgrade of Rv. 19 between E18 and Horten.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

*Nordøyvegen*

The administration of Møre og Romsdal has voted 26-21 to continue the Nordøyvegen project near Ålesund. The project has seen a substantial cost escalation and is largely funded by local sources.

NRK had a liveblog: https://www.nrk.no/mr/nordoyvegen-1.12782658


----------



## devo

An impressive project but completely over the top. Usually removing ferries results in shorter travel distances/time spent. But what about Kongsnes–Brattvåg. How is that going to be quicker? Only real benefit seems to be a "weatherproof" connection.


----------



## IceCheese

I'm surprised the county has so much money to spend on roads.

This looks unsafe.. What happens when there is a storm and the tunnel gets flooded? Seems the ferry would be more reliable.


----------



## italystf

IceCheese said:


> I'm surprised the county has so much money to spend on roads.
> 
> This looks unsafe.. What happens when there is a storm and the tunnel gets flooded? Seems the ferry would be more reliable.


Tunnel entrances are probably quite inland from the storm-prone shores.


----------



## MattiG

devo said:


> An impressive project but completely over the top. Usually removing ferries results in shorter travel distances/time spent. But what about Kongsnes–Brattvåg. How is that going to be quicker? Only real benefit seems to be a "weatherproof" connection.


If you count even a small fraction of the waiting time into the travel time, the proposed solution is quicker. There are only five daily ferry departures from Brattvåg to Fjørtofta.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

This project seems to eliminate 6 ferry connections;

* Kjerstad - Skjelten
* Kjerstad - Austnes
* Skjelten - Austnes
* Brattvåg - Fjørtoft
* Brattvåg - Myklebost
* Fjørtoft - Myklebost


----------



## MattiG

ChrisZwolle said:


> This project seems to eliminate 6 ferry connections;
> 
> * Kjerstad - Skjelten
> * Kjerstad - Austnes
> * Skjelten - Austnes
> * Brattvåg - Fjørtoft
> * Brattvåg - Myklebost
> * Fjørtoft - Myklebost


Well... I would count them as two instead of six. For instance, the triangle route Skjeltene–Lepsøya–Haramsøya (the first three above) is actually the route Skjeltene–Haramsøya with about every second departure making an intermediate stop at Lepsøya.


----------



## sam_18

IceCheese said:


> I'm surprised the county has so much money to spend on roads.
> 
> This looks unsafe.. What happens when there is a storm and the tunnel gets flooded? Seems the ferry would be more reliable.


good luck to Norway we wish you all the best


----------



## ChrisZwolle

*Bjarkøyforbindelsen*

The Bjarkøy Connection in the far north of Norway opens to traffic on Saturday 15 December.

It includes the 3250 meter long Kvernsund Tunnel to Bjarkøy, which is an undersea tunnel, and a bridge to Sandøya.

305951255


----------



## Kjello0

NRK with an article about really expensive road projects in very remote areas.
The government are spending 3.7 billion NOK on 600 people.

I'm quite in favour of having people living all over the country. But some of these projects are simply insane.


----------



## g.spinoza

If Norway has the money, and it has, why not?


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Most of these projects are tunnels to protect roads from rockslides and avalanches. They're more about safety and accessibility than improvement of mobility. They won't shorten travel times (except in case of a slide of course). 

The government assumes the responsibility to protect its citizens. I think they can't get away with: "we don't want to spend money to protect you, so you will have to be forcibly relocated". 

Though this is not uncommon elsewhere in Europe, where tunnels are built for a huge sum to avoid noise to some nearby residences. In some scenarios it would be cheaper to demolish a whole street than to build a tunnel. But no politician want to make that kind of decision.


----------



## Kjello0

People are sometimes forced to move because a new road is being built. It should work the other way around as well to some degree. People being forced to move because it's unnecessary expensive to let people continue to live there.

In Navelsaker 300 million is being spent on 19 people. That's almost 16 million per head. It would make more sense to pay each one of them 5 million to move and save 200 million.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

*Galdhøppigen*

I made a video of the road to Galdhøpiggen, the highest mountain in Norway. This is also the highest road in Scandinavia.


----------



## ElviS77

I took a medium road trip today just for fun, from Oslo to the current end of the E18 motorway just south of the Vestfold-Telemark county border and back. The distance along the motorway is slightly less than 150 kms, but to make it more fun, I took the "old" non-motorway going down, imagining life on the road 50 years agoÂ… My timed starting point was the Opera House. The times? 3:15 southbound, 1:25 northbound. 

First, a few comments on the route I took. I didn't really research old alignments very carefully, so in particular the section between Sandvika and Asker west was partially guesswork, simply sticking to westbound somewhat major roads. Second, in a couple of places (Horten exit, Tønsberg exit) the motorway construction has of course "eaten" the former road alignment, forcing me onto roads which may or may not have been part of an earlier alignment. Third, at least around the Torp exit, the old road has been realigned, making a detour around a village. Four, through Oslo and Bærum I cheated a bit. Since Rådhusplassen no longer is a viable place for cars, I used Ring 1 and Drammensveien. I also pretended that the current E18 Lysaker-Sandvika didn't exist back in the day and used older roads through eastern Bærum. 

The abovementioned added some time compared to reality 40 or 50 years ago, as would perhaps also lower speed limits (loads of 40, 50 and 60 km/h, almost no 80 km/h). However, the road was quiet, apart from through Sandvika and Tønsberg-Sandefjord, which shaves some time off. Thus, I don't think the time difference is unreasonable. Nonetheless, I was a little surprised myself,I mean, it's not as if I haven't driven there before. I imagined an average speed of around 70 (a bit more south of Drammen) on the old road and 100-110 km/h on the motorway. The latter proved correct, the former - not at all. The very biggest impact was between Oslo and Drammen; the motorway was 45 minutes quicker (and that's about 45 kms).

I don't know whether anyone else found this interesting, but I think it was quite interesting to make a practical (personal...) study of the impact of a motorway on travel. Of course, the fact that this area of Akershus, Buskerud and Vestfold is densely populated by Norwegian standards makes the impact greater, but still...


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Imagine the travel times if the motorway wasn't built. The road would be severely clogged up, perhaps all the way from Oslo to Larvik. 

I drove E18 from Drammen to Kristiansand in June. Traffic volumes taper off significantly south of Porsgrunn. 

What's interesting about E18 from Oslo to Kristiansand is that you actually travel more distance south than west, despite E18 being an east-west route. Kristiansand is almost 200 kilometers farther south than Oslo, but some 160 kilometers farther west. So when traveling from Oslo to Kristiansand, are you driving south or west? Especially Oslo - Larvik is mostly due south.


----------



## ElviS77

^^
I think most people would say they're going south, to the Sørlandet region, of which Kristiansand is the "capital". Btw, "Sørlandet", "Vestlandet", Østlandet", "Midt-Norge" and "Nord-Norge" are areas with no formal status, but they're nonetheless common Norwegian terminology. Thus, it's not entirely unlikely or unreasonable to say that you're going east, not north, when returning to Oslo...


----------



## suburbicide

While we're on the subject of E18 in the old days, here's a video of E18 at Lysaker in 1966, discussing some improvements on he road.


----------



## Uppsala

suburbicide said:


> While we're on the subject of E18 in the old days, here's a video of E18 at Lysaker in 1966, discussing some improvements on he road.



Very nice! Note the lighting on the E18. It's Belgian style on that :happy:


----------



## Rob73

ChrisZwolle said:


> The administration of Møre og Romsdal has voted 26-21 to continue the Nordøyvegen project near Ålesund. The project has seen a substantial cost escalation and is largely funded by local sources.
> 
> NRK had a liveblog: https://www.nrk.no/mr/nordoyvegen-1.12782658


This makes me so mad, it's such a massive waste of public funds for a tiny year round population, it gets bigger in summer, but this is pork barrel politics. 

There are far more important road links than this that need to start especially Møre Aksen before money is wasted on less than 2000 people.

I guess they want another Atlantic Road, but in this case it really would be a road to nowhere.


----------



## Rob73

g.spinoza said:


> If Norway has the money, and it has, why not?


Because to build some of these stupid pointless projects other areas are defunded. Where I live schools have to cut 120 mnok next year in part due to Nordøyvegen.


----------



## ElviS77

ChrisZwolle said:


> ImaginSo when traveling from Oslo to Kristiansand, are you driving south or west?


I thought a little bit more about how we use directions in Norwegian, because for foreigners, it may cause some confusion. First of all, going north, east, south or west isn't the norm in many situations. We're typically going in ("inn") and out - "ut" - of Oslo, no matter which side we're coming from/going to. Sometimes we're going down - "ned" - (to Oslo from Trondheim, for instance) or up - "opp" - (Oslo-Trondheim). Oslo-Bergen is even more confusing, as we're commonly going over - "over" - no matter which direction we're heading. This comes from crossing over the mountains, of course, but we're crossing mountains heading for Trondheim as well, but nobody would say "over til Trondheim". That phrase would makes sense if coming from Östersund, though. And if we're heading to Oppdal from Trondheim, we'd probably say "opp til Oppdal" (500+ masl, Trondheim at sea level), but if we're going all the way to Lillehammer, we'd change to "ned til", even though Lillehammer is higher (150 masl) than Trondheim...


----------



## ElviS77

suburbicide said:


> While we're on the subject of E18 in the old days, here's a video of E18 at Lysaker in 1966, discussing some improvements on he road.


Interestingly, the current alignment is basically the same. The new road, construction due to start next year, but which now may be postponed (https://www.nrk.no/ostlandssendingen/ny-e18-ut-av-oslo-utsettes-_-far-ikke-penger-1.14344628 - in Norwegian), will also partially follow the same corridor, although longer sections will be tunneled.


----------



## MichiH

ChrisZwolle said:


> Apparently they are going to renumber many county roads: https://vegnett.no/2018/07/na-far-mange-veger-nye-nummer/


Is there any info about the renumbering procedure? Do they only wanna renumber Fylkesveier or also Riksveier or even E roads? Is anything already final? When should it go live, January 2020?


----------



## MattiG

MichiH said:


> Is there any info about the renumbering procedure? Do they only wanna renumber Fylkesveier or also Riksveier or even E roads? Is anything already final? When should it go live, January 2020?


Basically, it is about Fylkersveier, because merging provinces causes overlaps.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

*Ryfast*

The 14.3 kilometer long Ryfylke Tunnel near Stavanger is nearing completion. It will be the longest twin-tube tunnel in Europe once it opens, though it will be overtaken in the near future by the Stockholm Bypass tunnel, the Fehmarnbelttunnel and the Boknafjord Tunnel. Europe's longest tunnels are no longer in the Alps, but increasingly in Northern Europe.


----------



## MichiH

MichiH said:


> *E39:* Tasta – Schancheholen 4.5km (April 2014 to 2019) – project – map
> *Rv13:* Madlaveien (E39) – Hundvag 5.7km (May 2014 to 2019) – project – map


There will be a public open day on October 5th. I think everything should be opened in late 2019, not earlier.

I'm not sure why I've not put the 'Ryfylketunnelen' onto my 'motorway and expressway u/c list' (because there are roundabouts at both ends and no grade-separated interchange? Or just because construction works started earlier than the other sections?) but I think I should do now:

*Rv13:* Hundvag – Solbakk 15km (2013 to Late 2019) – project – map


----------



## ChrisZwolle

*Fv. 51 Valdresflye II*

Some photos of the north side of Valdresflye. There is a straight segment on a plateau at nearly 1400 meters altitude (making it one of the highest paved roads in Norway).

1. 

Fylkesvei 51 Valdresflye-12 by European Roads, on Flickr

2. View towards the south

Fylkesvei 51 Valdresflye-13 by European Roads, on Flickr

3. View towards the north

Fylkesvei 51 Valdresflye-14 by European Roads, on Flickr

4. Side valleys into the Jotunheimen area.

Fylkesvei 51 Valdresflye-15 by European Roads, on Flickr

5. Descent towards the north.

Fylkesvei 51 Valdresflye-18 by European Roads, on Flickr

6. A lake, with view on Jotunheimen.

Fylkesvei 51 Valdresflye-19 by European Roads, on Flickr


----------



## ChrisZwolle

*traffic safety*

Norway recorded 108 traffic fatalities in 2018, according to preliminary figures by Statens Vegvesen. This is 2 more than 2017 and the second-lowest in over 70 years. Norway will likely remain the safest country unless another safe country made significant progress, but the overall trend in the last 5 years is against that.

There has been a trend for 3-8 years that traffic fatalities bottomed out after 2010 and then fluctuated up and down without a further downward trend. 

* Norway: lowest in 2016
* Netherlands: lowest in 2013 & 2014, higher since
* Sweden: lowest in 2017, but no clear downward trend since 2010
* Spain: lowest in 2013, upward trend since
* Switzerland: lowest in 2016, bottoming out since 2014
* Germany: lowest in 2017 but decline has slowed significantly since 2013
* Denmark: lowest in 2012, fluctuating since

Sweden appears to be the first country that saw a bottoming out, in 2010. 

Distraction from smartphones is increasingly cited across Europe as a main cause of traffic accidents. The bottoming out of a downward trend appears to coincide with the mass-adoption of smartphones.


----------



## g.spinoza

^^ In Italy it flattened in 2013, with 2016 being the lowest.


----------



## MattiG

ChrisZwolle said:


> Sweden appears to be the first country that saw a bottoming out, in 2010.


That was the time when most of the conversion from the old 13 meter wide 1+1 roads to the 2+1 ones was complete.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

A deal has been signed to construct a new suspension bridge south of Tønsberg.










>> https://bypakketonsbergregionen.no/aktuelt/inngaar-avtale-om-ny-fastlandsforbindelse/


----------



## ChrisZwolle

A 'whoopsie-poopsie' in Åndalsnes. It blocked the Rauma Line as well.


----------



## IceCheese

^^He's incredibly lucky there were no one on the bridge and that Raumabanen isn't electrified.


----------



## keber

Is this bridge so low (which I find impossible due to railway proximity) or are bridge pillars unguarded and too close to the road?


----------



## ElviS77

^^
I think he was driving with his crane up.


----------



## Tronni

^^ Yes, his crane was up. https://www.tv2.no/nyheter/10316614/


----------



## suburbicide

Accidents like that seem to happen all the time. There should be some regulation to prevent trucks from driving while the crane is up.


----------



## IceCheese

^^Or a speed cap


----------



## suburbicide

Electric cars continue to increase their market share with an increase in sales of 39.5%. For 2018 market share by driveline is as follows:

Electric cars: 31.2%
Hybrids: 29%
Petrol only: 22%
Diesel only: 17.7%

The top selling cars (utility vehicles excluded):

1. Nissan Leaf
2. VW Golf
3. BMW i3
4. Tesla Model X
5. Mitsubishi Outlander
6. Toyota Yaris 
7. Volvo XC60
8. Tesla Model S
9. Toyota RAV4
10. Renault Zoe


----------



## ChrisZwolle

As of 31 December 2017, the share of EVs in Norway was 5.1% of all cars. Are there any projections when it will reach 50%?

The new EV sales figures are impressive, but Norway has low new car sales per capita, so the renewal of the car fleet is a much slower process than the EV sales suggest. 

It's the same problem in the Netherlands. Both Norway and the Netherlands have among the lowest new car sales per 1000 inhabitants in Northwest Europe.


----------



## Rob73

Why anyone would be stupid enough to buy an i3, it's such a massive compromise of a vehicle, poor interior space, stupid door arrangement, limited range, fairly expensive once you add all the good bits and damn ugly. I guess it's the badge on the front. 

I bought a new diesel vehicle last year, I will go electric once the range has increased to 1000km per charge.


----------



## Rebasepoiss

^^ A 1000 km range electric car would be utterly pointless. The extra range wouldn't be worth the huge mass of batteries you would need to haul around everywhere. I think the sweet spot is 300 km for smaller cars and 500 km for larger ones. Very few people travel more than 500 km a day and even if you do, you are going to need to take a 30 min break at least once (for safety reasons if not for anything else). With the way fast charging is going, that would be enogh to charge the batteries to 80%.


----------



## MattiG

Rebasepoiss said:


> ^^ A 1000 km range electric car would be utterly pointless. The extra range wouldn't be worth the huge mass of batteries you would need to haul around everywhere. I think the sweet spot is 300 km for smaller cars and 500 km for larger ones. Very few people travel more than 500 km a day and even if you do, you are going to need to take a 30 min break at least once (for safety reasons if not for anything else). With the way fast charging is going, that would be enogh to charge the batteries to 80%.


Here we face the logistics challenges. A 30 minute charging time every 300 km is most probably something people do not accept. The refueling takes a few minutes only. If the market share grows, there will be a need to charge several vehicles simultaneously. That will be a major challence for the power grid.

Let us assume that a typical battery capacity will be 50 kWh. If you need to charge 80% of that in 15 minutes at the efficiency of 80%, you need a power supply of 200 kilowatts. (To compare: a typical electricity-heated one-family house in Finland has a supply on [email protected] = 25 kW.) If you want to provide with charging services to five cars simultaneously, then you need a supply of one megawatt. I am quite sure that such a feed need is a major challenge in most countries in rural areas.

I am quite sure that the most important limiting factor of electric cars is not the battery capacity but the power grid.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Most people would charge their car overnight and only use fast-chargers on a few long-distance trips. 

Norway may have an advantage here over the Netherlands. Overnight charging is easy when you can park on your own driveway or in your garage, which most Dutch don't have. Most Dutch have streetside parking. They would need to install a very large amount of charging points on public parking spaces in the Netherlands for large-scale EV adoption.


----------



## g.spinoza

Rebasepoiss said:


> ^^ A 1000 km range electric car would be utterly pointless. The extra range wouldn't be worth the huge mass of batteries you would need to haul around everywhere.


At the current state of technology, you are right. Imagine the energy density of a battery increases ten times, or just five: you will be able to reach 1000 km range without increasing battery mass. This, increasing the charging speed and preventing degradation over time are the technological challenges for the future of electric cars.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

The range reduction in cold climates is a real issue though, so if you want an all-round vehicle and not stop at a charging station every 1.5 hours you need more like 500 km range. So far only Tesla builds EVs with a WLTP range of 450 - 500 km.

Most Norwegians live in coastal cities which don't get as cold as Sweden or Finland, so the cold climate issue is only a thing when you drive long-distance across the mountains or the eastern interior. I bet it's not much fun driving an older generation entry-level EV like the Zoe or Leaf from Bergen to Oslo.

In my experience you mostly see Tesla's on long-distance routes between major cities. In places like Oslo, Bergen or Kristiansand EVs are all over the place but once you get 40+ km from those cities mostly the Teslas remain.


----------



## Rebasepoiss

^^ Jaguar I-Pace also has a WLTP range of 470 km. Anyways, this is getting a bit off topic already.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Maybe we should talk about the Saggrenda Bridge of E134 at Kongsberg. It was built with a large amount of falsework.


----------



## devo

Much better! 

I'm still gonna throw in the fact (to counter MattiG's point) that charging stations will have some sort of battery or capacitor so you don't need a MW supply. That being said, and to loosely tie it to this section of the forum, Norway's electricity grid is highly capable of delivering MWs over the time it takes to charge a car, I just assume that it would be more sensible to use batteries as a buffer (which is done with some rapid chargers today). Therefore, with a combination of these two facts, I don't see any issue with providing rapid charging across the entire country.

But enough off-topic, let's look at the bridge!


----------



## ChrisZwolle

*Nye Veier*

Nye Veier has expanded its portfolio with three new upgrade projects;

* E6 Øyer - Otta
* E6 Kvænangsfjellet 
* E16 Kløfta - Kongsvinger


----------



## Gsus

ChrisZwolle said:


> Nye Veier has expanded its portfolio with three new upgrade projects;
> 
> * E6 Øyer - Otta
> * E6 Kvænangsfjellet
> * E16 Kløfta - Kongsvinger


Gonna be exciting to see what changes in the plans they might do. On E16 Kløfta - Kongsvinger (actually Nybakk - Slomarka) they've suggested other, shorter routes than the current plans north of Glomma. The most radical, and shortest of which several kilometers of four lane E16 opened as late as 2014 (including the 741m long Gulli bridge over Glomma) will have been built for nothing. This alternative will include a new bridge across Glomma. Another alternative is to also go south of Skarnes, but then turn north to Slomarka. Also this will be shorter than the planned north-bank alignment, but include two new crossings of Glomma.

When it comes to E6 in Gudbrandsdalen, the sections Øyer-Tretten and Fra-Sjoa had been built the last 10 years. I don't think even Nye veier will start thinking about expanding these sections to continuously four lanes (although all overpasses and major constructions is customized for a 17,5m four lane profile). Probably the tunnels will also stay single-tubed for a while. Sjoa-Otta is planned with the same standard (no tunnel), and Nye veier will probably have to start a new zoning-phase if they're thinking about building four lanes there. Don't find it likely, but one never knows. This section is also quite ready for a potential quick commence of building as it is. The missing sections between Tretten and Frya tho, is gonna be exciting to follow!

But then a little "but"; afaik theres not planned any increase in funding to Nye veier from the government. I've not heard anything about the total worth of their new portfolio, but at least the least that would most probably need an increase. And the total portfolio a longer time horizon.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Apparently there are some problems at the new Hålogaland Bridge near Narvik, there is a fracture in one of the 44 sub-cables of the main cable. They say it's not dramatic and doesn't affect the carrying capacity of the bridge, but they are going to inspect it twice a day. Of course this shouldn't happen on a brand new bridge.

>> https://www.vegvesen.no/Europaveg/e...iv/ekstra-inspeksjoner-etter-brudd-i-ett-stag


----------



## Rob73

Rebasepoiss said:


> ^^ A 1000 km range electric car would be utterly pointless. The extra range wouldn't be worth the huge mass of batteries you would need to haul around everywhere. I think the sweet spot is 300 km for smaller cars and 500 km for larger ones. Very few people travel more than 500 km a day and even if you do, you are going to need to take a 30 min break at least once (for safety reasons if not for anything else). With the way fast charging is going, that would be enogh to charge the batteries to 80%.


I don't want a 30 minute break every 300km. 

BTW have you seen the Tesla supercharger stations in Norway in summer, they are packed, people end up spending hours waiting to charge. Also when there are two cars using the same charger the charging time is doubled. I don't want an electric future if it's going to be like this, bring on hydrogen please, the latest Hyundai Nexo can get 600km from a 5 minute refill, all Norway needs is more filling stations.


----------



## geogregor

Rob73 said:


> I don't want an electric future if it's going to be like this, bring on hydrogen please, the latest Hyundai Nexo can get 600km from a 5 minute refill, all Norway needs is more filling stations.


I was wondering what happened to the hydrogen technology, it seemed to disappear from the radar as everyone is obsessed with the battery technology.


----------



## g.spinoza

geogregor said:


> I was wondering what happened to the hydrogen technology, it seemed to disappear from the radar as everyone is obsessed with the battery technology.


I guess the battery improvement seems a shorter-period achievable target, while there are still non-trivial problems in the generation and storage of hydrogen.
Just my feeling, though.


----------



## suburbicide

A video showing the current state of the new 23 km section of E18 Tvedestrand - Arendal, due to open in October.


----------



## pedrofil

Rob73 said:


> I don't want a 30 minute break every 300km.


When affordable EVs can do Oslo - Bergen (or similar routes), with maximum 15-20 min of charging in winter, I'll probably invest in an EV. I never really drive in the city, as I live in the city centre, and don't mind taking the bus/bybane now and then. If I drive it's mostly trips to other Norwegian cities, my parent's cabin or Jotunheimen, so I might get a cheap diesel hatchback in the near future, and wait for improved EVs. 

In other news,

...some video footage of the E39 - Svegatjørn - Rådal:

https://www.bt.no/nyheter/lokalt/i/...land-som-kan-ha-fart-pa-100-kilometer-i-timen

Most of the road stretch and tunnels will be "finished" during 2019, so they will spend quite a lot of time on electrical installations and such until they open in the summer of 2022.. 

The section RV580 (passing Lagunen towards the airport) should open for traffic in the summer of 2021.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

A story by NRK on chain usage among foreign truck drivers: https://www.nrk.no/finnmark/utenlandske-sjaforer-kvier-seg-for-a-bruke-kjetting-1.14385549

They conclude that foreign truckers are now better prepared for winter conditions than before, but they still lack proper winter driving skills and while they often do have chains, they don't want to put them on because they have borrowed them or want to resell them. So they only take the chains with them to comply with entry requirements, but don't want to actually use them.


----------



## MattiG

ChrisZwolle said:


> A story by NRK on chain usage among foreign truck drivers: https://www.nrk.no/finnmark/utenlandske-sjaforer-kvier-seg-for-a-bruke-kjetting-1.14385549
> 
> They conclude that foreign truckers are now better prepared for winter conditions than before, but they still lack proper winter driving skills and while they often do have chains, they don't want to put them on because they have borrowed them or want to resell them. So they only take the chains with them to comply with entry requirements, but don't want to actually use them.


The people in the north Finland hate the east European truckers for the same reasons. Lifting their trucks back onto the road might block the only road for hours, and the detours may add hundreds of kilometers. I despising word 'girteka' is nowadays in a wide use, derived from the name of a Lithuanian transport company.


----------



## Tronni

This is how the E18 through Bamble will look like:


----------



## aubergine72

Suburbanist said:


> Obtaining a Norwegian commercial driver's license (for a newbie driver *without previous car license*) cost as much as the annual wages of a trucker in Lithuania or Bulgaria.


Is that possible? In the US you must have a regular car license in order to get a commercial one.


----------



## Suburbanist

aubergine72 said:


> Is that possible? In the US you must have a regular car license in order to get a commercial one.


It just mean I was considering the full cost of going from non driver to commercial articulated truck driver.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

ChrisZwolle said:


> The 23 kilometer motorway project of E18 between Tvedestrand and Arendal is ahead of schedule and will open to traffic before the summer vacation, 3 months earlier than its original deadline of October 2019.


2 July 2019 to be exact.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

*Fv. 651 Gaustatoppen*

I spent one night in Rjukan, a bit out of the way on my trip from Setesdal to Hardangerfjord. So I was able to record the road around Gaustatoppen, the highest mountain of Telemark. It is considerably higher than the surrounding mountains. Fv. 651 is the 7th highest paved road in Norway.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

You should have taken the hike to the top. It is not very tough, and the view is very wide as there are no surrounding mountains with similar height, as you say ;-) If the hike is too much, it is also possible to take a funicular inside the mountain. It was originally constructed for military purposes during the cold war but is now open for the public. https://gaustabanen.no/en/


----------



## ChrisZwolle

*Riksvei 3*

I took some photos of Riksvei 3 southbound. I drove the entire route from Ulsberg to Kolomoen.

Rv. 3 is the shortest route between Oslo and Trondheim. It's shorter than E6. Rv. 3 runs through Østerdalen and is less prone to winter weather compared to Dovrefjell. It also has less elevation changes.

1. The highest point of Rv. 3. moh = meter over havet, meters above sea level

Riksvei 3-1 by European Roads, on Flickr

2. Oslo is a long drive with 80 km/h speed limits...

Riksvei 3-2 by European Roads, on Flickr

3. This is about the most spectacular the scenery gets along Rv. 3

Riksvei 3-3 by European Roads, on Flickr

4. Rv. 3 is characterized by heavy tree coverage.

Riksvei 3-4 by European Roads, on Flickr

5. Elverum is the largest town on Rv. 3, the other places are much smaller.

Riksvei 3-5 by European Roads, on Flickr

6. 

Riksvei 3-6 by European Roads, on Flickr

7. Rv. 3 becomes a 2+1 road south of Elverum. This part will not be upgraded as part of the Rv 3/25 PPP upgrade though.

Riksvei 3-7 by European Roads, on Flickr

8.

Riksvei 3-8 by European Roads, on Flickr

9. The motorway starts soon after this point, which means Oslo is a good hour of driving away.

Riksvei 3-9 by European Roads, on Flickr


----------



## IceCheese

ChrisZwolle said:


> 9. The motorway starts soon after this point, which means Oslo is a good hour of driving away.
> 
> Riksvei 3-9 by European Roads, on Flickr


I despise racks like that after once almost hitting a bike falling off of one (on Rv3 coincidently). You never know if people have been using them correctly and the bike is properly mounted.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

^^ Did the bikes fall of a rack at the roof or at the back? I assume the former would be more dangerous.



ChrisZwolle said:


> 3. This is about the most spectacular the scenery gets along Rv. 3
> 
> Riksvei 3-3 by European Roads, on Flickr


Perhaps, but the your forgot the most spectacular, or at least most specular, object of the route, the world largest moose ;-)
















http://www.storelgen.no/

Joke aside, once you have been there - done that in Gudbrandsdalen (E6) or Rondane (Fv 27), most drivers prefer the faster and normally far less stressful Rv 3. Rv 3 will be further improved by the new section around Elverum and, more importantly for trucks at least but a bit further ahead in time, a tunnel bypassing the highest point of Rv 3. If you're not driving a truck or towing something, a good alternative Tynset-Rena is btw a bit further east via Fv 30 and the unsigned Fv 607 via Tylldal / Rendalen and Deset. It is both a bit shorter and imo more scenic, but a bit more winding and narrower in some sections.

PS: The original motivation of the moose statue was basically to function like a giant moose warning sign, as far as I have understood.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

That moose along Rv. 3 dethroned the statue of a moose in Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan for being the largest moose in the world, and they weren't happy about it, CBC: Moose Jaw is no longer home to the world's tallest moose statue. Residents appear ready to rise up


----------



## tomPunk

*Auto trip on amazing Norwegian roads (Forsand - Odda)*




Driving in some "inner fjord" parts of Rogaland and southern Hordaland.


----------



## Suburbanist

I wonder if these moose are the equivalent to those Spanish bulls seen on several freeways.


----------



## mwalsh

ChrisZwolle said:


> The 3 kilometer long Jordal Tunnel opened to traffic yesterday near Voss. It connects some outlying houses with a total population of 40, just off E16. It replaces a dangerous and narrow road that was prone to landslides and avalanches. It has cost 320 million NOK (€ 34 million). It was also built for a small hydropower plant in the river. It is a spiral tunnel according to Open Street Map.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.nrk.no/hordaland/40-innbyggere-fikk-tunnel-til-320-millioner-1.13004509


I should have thought to come here as my first stop to ask this question - this site has been very helpful with off-the-wall questions I've had prior to previous visits to Norway (and as I recall Denmark too).

Anyway, this one probably takes the cake for being as off-the-wall as it gets, and is for someone who may have visited/used this tunnel. 

Some of our family members in the 1700s were from Jordalen (and prior to that Nåsen), and we’ll be visiting the area for the first time while on a family heritage tour of Norway this summer. 

I was initially terrified about the prospect of driving up on the old road (both the wife and I have mild claustrophobia) and am very pleased to read about the new (2016) tunnel, yet still a bit apprehensive over using it.

From pictures I've seen on the web, it looks like the road in the tunnel is (almost?) wide enough for trucks to pass each other, or certainly wide enough for cars to pass. Is that correct?

If not correct, does the tunnel have turnouts that can be used to let oncoming traffic by without having to reverse all the way up/down the mountain?

Tusen takk i avansere for the responses.


----------



## mwalsh

54°26′S 3°24′E;156836818 said:


> PS: The original motivation of the moose statue was basically to function like a giant moose warning sign, as far as I have understood.


Man, it's a pity that Moose is so far north, it would have been a fun stop for a photo while in the Elverum area. But the next stop is Løten and then north along the banks of the Mjøsa to Lillehammer, so to go that far out of the way only to come back again would kill the schedule.

Edit: After reading this thread some more, I'm also an EV driver, with a Nissan LEAF I bought new in 2011. My wife has a 2013 Chevrolet Volt (Opel Ampera, old style) which she drives mostly EV (we use maybe 15 liters of gasoline in it per year). I won't be hiring an EV in Norway though, due to a lack of knowledge when it comes to the charging infrastructure. And even though I can drive a manual, I'll be wussing out and hiring an automatic, due to the amount of mountain driving we'll be doing.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

^^The tunnel is 5 m wide, which is more than enough for cars passing each other. There might be pockets along the tunnel as well, but I have no first hand experience of that particular tunnel.

With regards to EV charging infrastructure, there is plenty information on the internet.
https://www.ladestasjoner.no/kart/
https://ladekart.elbil.no/map

Finally, IMHO mountain driving with an automatic sucks big time! (unless you are driving an electric car which is normally not really automatic but without gear)


----------



## ChrisZwolle

The Namsos toll ring in northern Trøndelag is paid off and toll collection will end on 31 March 2019 at 2 p.m.

The tolling funded some local road upgrades in this small city. Namsos has a population of 13,000, I think it was the smallest town to get a toll ring at that time. It consisted of 4 tolling points going into town.

It's debatable whether minor road improvements like this requires toll as a financing method: https://www.vegamot.no/Om_prosjektet-2.aspx


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

I do not like toll financing in any case, as it is a rather inefficient way of collecting public money which often is also quite unfair. However, what is seen as a minor project or expense from Netherlands is probably not perceived that way from a smaller local community like Namsos.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

If you look at the examples in the link, you can see they are all minor reconstructions of streets. Which have almost no benefit to those who pay the tolls (drivers). If there is a community benefit, it should be paid for by the entire community. It would be different if there was a large new bridge or tunnel that really makes a difference for mobility.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

What do you think of those Chinese companies scooping up jobs in Norway? Now the E18 Grenland Bridge may be awarded to CCCC: http://www.bygg.no/article/1386189


----------



## ChrisZwolle

*E39*

Nye Veier has presented the preferred alternative for the E39 motorway between Mandal and Lyngdal.










It includes the Skofteland Bridge, which will be the highest bridge in Norway at 100 meters.


----------



## Suburbanist

15 new toll stations are coming online in Bergen.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

ChrisZwolle said:


> If you look at the examples in the link, you can see they are all minor reconstructions of streets. Which have almost no benefit to those who pay the tolls (drivers). If there is a community benefit, it should be paid for by the entire community. It would be different if there was a large new bridge or tunnel that really makes a difference for mobility.


I think there is both a new tunnel and a bridge, in addition to improvements in some junction.....

However, what you mention is not particular to the Namsos project. In fact, at least in all the major urban toll projects of Norway now, only a fraction of the funding goes to improving roads for cars. The rest goes to PT, bike / pedestrian lanes and "environmental" projects. In fact, a lot of the funding goes to project actively restricting the access for cars with no apparent impact I can see. In Trondheim for instance, the lanes available for cars leading into and going through the inner city areas have decreased by almost 50 %. All the while the population is increasing by almost 2 % a year....
https://miljopakken.no/

One of the silliest projects so far was the removal of two lanes in (what used to be) one of the main streets of Trondheim, Olav Tryggvasons gate. There is now a "trial" where four lanes are reduced to two PT lanes plus bike lanes and benches etc. The result? Chaotic traffic conditions slows down the buses compared with before, several shops have closed down, and you can just imagine how many people are enjoying those benches in the middle of the traffic during winter. It really frustrates me that public money can be spent this way, and that people still votes for the clowns in charge. You have the same story in Oslo, btw.










ChrisZwolle said:


> Nye Veier has presented the preferred alternative for the E39 motorway between Mandal and Lyngdal.


I assume the Mandal and Lindesnes politicians are not too pleased with the realignment going further away from their towns. I really love how Nye veier pushes more sensible routes.


----------



## Suburbanist

In Bergen, there was talk of another increase in tolls for new light rail projects. They want less, not more, cars driving from the North (Åsane) into the city center, while the area is home to many new residential developments. 

The light rail is going to be built, I'm not sure about the outcome of incremental toll fares to help pay for it.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

*E6 & Rv. 3*

I took some photos of E6 and Rv. 3 

E6 in Oppdal was built on a new alignment that bypassed the city center. This section opened in 2015.

E6 Oppdal-1 by European Roads, on Flickr


E6 Oppdal-2 by European Roads, on Flickr

The northern terminus of Rv. 3 at E6 near Ulsberg. Oslo is signed via E6 despite Rv. 3 being shorter, faster and less prone to winter weather. Rv. 3 meets E6 again at its southern terminus, 291 kilometers to the south of here.


E6 Ulsberg-2 by European Roads, on Flickr


Riksvei 3 Ulsberg-1 by European Roads, on Flickr


Riksvei 3 Ulsberg-3 by European Roads, on Flickr


----------



## ElviS77

ChrisZwolle said:


> The northern terminus of Rv. 3 at E6 near Ulsberg. Oslo is signed via E6 despite Rv. 3 being shorter, faster and less prone to winter weather.


Indeed. However, moving the E6 to Østerdalen requires spending a hell of a lot of political capital, which no-one is particularly interested in doing. It may seem strange to non-Norwegians, but even something as trivial as road numbers is potentially political dynamite up here. The very best example of strange main route signage in that respect, is of course Oslo-Bergen: there are four alternatives, and the longest and least used got the "main" number (E16). Politics. Of course, there are some arguments in favour of E6 in its current corridor - it is busier most of the way, it connects more towns, valleys and villages to Oslo, and it's currently being improved considerably, but still, the road numbers are all about politics.


Thus, things will probably remain the same. The potential (or, quite possibly very real) problem with that, is that sorely needed upgrades may be less likely to happen anytime soon than if the rv 3 had carried an E number. And, due to its long-distance importance, it should be prioritized. Some sections have been widened to 8.5 metres, and similar widenings are around the corner. Better than it was, certainly, but not enough, it seems, even to return the speed limit to its former 90 km/h glory. Annoying, as a 1+1/2+1 solution following its current alignment would have been enough for the forseeable future, and it could be done fairly cheaply.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

I can understand that E6 receives so many upgrades, where Rv. 3 only serves traffic going to Trondheim, several major routes branch off of E6 to the northwest. E6 upgrades in Gudbrandsdalen not only improve E6 traffic, but also to Måløy, Ålesund, Åndalsnes, Molde and Kristiansund, plus the towns in Gudbrandsdalen itself.

It's more of a multi-purpose route compared to Rv. 3. There aren't many major towns in Østerdalen apart from Elverum. Even a major intermediate point like Tynset has a population of only 2,700. 

It's probably a question of focusing funding for only a single purpose (Oslo - Trondheim) or for multiple routes (to the northwestern cities and towns).

How bad is Dovrefjell in the winter? While exposed, the really exposed section only seems to be the 10 km portion north of Hjerkinn. The approaches of Dovrefjell aren't very steep except for a brief section right after Dombås.


----------



## Kjello0

ChrisZwolle said:


> How bad is Dovrefjell in the winter? While exposed, the really exposed section only seems to be the 10 km portion north of Hjerkinn. The approaches of Dovrefjell aren't very steep except for a brief section right after Dombås.


Compared to the east-west crossings, not bad at all.

Statistics from the winters of 2009-10 including 2013-14 shows this.

Convoy traffic
Haukelifjell 2 697 hours
Hardangervidda 2 530 hours
Hemsedalsfjellet 976 hours
Filefjell 160 hours
Dovrefjell 52 hours

Temporary closed
Hardangervidda 2 666 hours
Haukelifjell 1080 hours
Filefjell 769 hours
Hemsedalsfjellet 310 hours
Dovrefjell 198 hours

Regarding which valley E6 should follow, it's my opinion that E6 should be rerouted to Østerdalen. And E136 should be extended from Dombås down to Kolomoen where it would meet E6 again. Actually, it should follow Rv4 through Hadeland down to Oslo. As that's the shortest and fastest route. However, that part will most likely be difficult as the motorway is being built north of Hamar.


----------



## ElviS77

ChrisZwolle said:


> I can understand that E6 receives so many upgrades, where Rv. 3 only serves traffic going to Trondheim, several major routes branch off of E6 to the northwest. E6 upgrades in Gudbrandsdalen not only improve E6 traffic, but also to Måløy, Ålesund, Åndalsnes, Molde and Kristiansund, plus the towns in Gudbrandsdalen itself.
> 
> It's more of a multi-purpose route compared to Rv. 3. There aren't many major towns in Østerdalen apart from Elverum. Even a major intermediate point like Tynset has a population of only 2,700.
> 
> It's probably a question of focusing funding for only a single purpose (Oslo - Trondheim) or for multiple routes (to the northwestern cities and towns).
> 
> How bad is Dovrefjell in the winter? While exposed, the really exposed section only seems to be the 10 km portion north of Hjerkinn. The approaches of Dovrefjell aren't very steep except for a brief section right after Dombås.


The multi-purpose thing is of course the main reason, but one should not discount Norwegian regional politics from anything infrastructure related... In my book, the main reason the rv 3 should get more serious upgrades is the amount of HGVs. 

Dovre isn't closed very often, but it's not unheard of. 30+ kms of the Dovre road is above 900 masl, and that is more than enough to cause problems. The southern approach is also quite steep, as you mention, and upgrading it in its current corridor is impossible, due to the proximity of the national park. Thus, any major road construction would require extremely long tunnels. It might even be that the only reasonable solution would be to build such tunnels under the Ringebu mountain further east.

To conclude: No new Gundbrandsdal-Oppdal mountain crossing will happen in the near future, so the rv 3 will certainly remain a very important road link for decades to come.


----------



## devo

54°26′S 3°24′E;157224042 said:


> (...)
> 
> I assume the Mandal and Lindesnes politicians are not too pleased with the realignment going further away from their towns. I really love how Nye veier pushes more sensible routes.


In fact, the route in red was chosen to align with the project E 39 Fardalsbakken, which opened as 2+1 in 2011.

https://www.aftenbladet.no/innenrik...av-ny-E39--kan-bli-landets-flotteste-lokalvei

Looking at the picture in this link, however, you can spot the old, narrow and relatively steep road on the left. The steep part is behind the trees as I recall. Thinking that this would have stayed like this until 2024-5 makes the new road look less stupid, even if it will be banished to the thread of "former trunk roads."

EDIT: This picture explains the whole thing a lot clearer (perhaps):


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

ChrisZwolle said:


> I can understand that E6 receives so many upgrades, where Rv. 3 only serves traffic going to Trondheim, several major routes branch off of E6 to the northwest. E6 upgrades in Gudbrandsdalen not only improve E6 traffic, but also to Måløy, Ålesund, Åndalsnes, Molde and Kristiansund, plus the towns in Gudbrandsdalen itself.
> 
> It's more of a multi-purpose route compared to Rv. 3. There aren't many major towns in Østerdalen apart from Elverum. Even a major intermediate point like Tynset has a population of only 2,700.
> 
> It's probably a question of focusing funding for only a single purpose (Oslo - Trondheim) or for multiple routes (to the northwestern cities and towns).
> 
> How bad is Dovrefjell in the winter? While exposed, the really exposed section only seems to be the 10 km portion north of Hjerkinn. The approaches of Dovrefjell aren't very steep except for a brief section right after Dombås.





Kjello0 said:


> (...about Dovre/E6 winter closures...)
> Compared to the east-west crossings, not bad at all.





ElviS77 said:


> (..)
> To conclude: No new Gundbrandsdal-Oppdal mountain crossing will happen in the near future, so the rv 3 will certainly remain a very important road link for decades to come.


E6 main appear multipurpose, but as indicated by Kjello0 and partly ElvsS77 above and discussed multiple times before in this thread, it does not really serve traffic between South-Eastern Norway and Central Norway / parts of Northern Norway the way Rv 3 does. And these areas of Norway has far higher population than the towns and areas you mention, Chris, and includes the city in Norway outside Oslo which grows the fastest in absolute numbers. You will probably need full motorway beyond Dombås, which is not in the cards in the forseeable future, and no improvements on Rv 3, just to make the traveling time by car comparable between the two alternatives. Since trucks and buses have speed limitations (in Norway 80 km/h), Østerdalen / Rv 3 will always be the fastest route for them no matter what works are done on in Oppdal, Gudbrandsdalen, or Dovre. 

Rv 3 has been the dominating route between south-eastern Norwauy and Trøndelag for at least 50-60 years now, but this has not always been the case, as Gudbrandsdalen / Dovre for thousands of years used to be the main land-route between southern Norway and Trøndelag (the most important route was by sea, of course). Back then it was safer and more conventient as there was never far beetween farms except across the mountain itself. This is probably the historical reason for the current E6 routing. The reason it remains so is, as ElviS77 states, purely political, as the E6 brand is not only good for attracting tourist, but more importantly a means to gain road funding by claiming that this is the main road Oslo-Trondheim, while road improvements there, as discussed above, in fact does not improve travel betweeen these two cities at all.

With regards to Rv 3, the biggest improvement that is currently planned following the new road Løten - Elverum, are improvements right north of Tynset. This will most likely include a tunnel which will reduce the highest altidude of RV3 somewhat, but more importantly eliminate one of the most winding and hence problematic areas for trucks. Although regional politicians on both side of the mountain seem to prioritizing intraregional connections, I am actually quite hopeful that a more major improvement will come in the decades ahead. Only a few years ago, I do not think anybody would have guessed that there soon will be motorway almost all the way to the nortern Rv 3 terminus, so there is a certainly a momentum for improvement of the national road network right now. As the realization sinks in that car transportation will be pollution free in the future, while no such realistic alternative exist for air travel, I think also a national motorwa network will be less political contriversal in the years ahead.

If it was to be done on the cheap, I would not support a 1+1 or 1+2, IMO it is better and not much more expensive to do a full dual carriageway 2+2. Full motorway grade separated intersections, which could be very expensive, are probably not so important neither for safety nor travel time as there are not many sideroads with significant traffic. Improving current E6 Dombås-Oppdal across Dovre on the other hand does not make much sense. If you look at the map, you get far down in Østerdalen by traveling the same distance, and as discussed above E6 Dovre can never again be the dominating north-south link of Norway anyway.

With regards to winter weather, E6 is not often closed as Kjello0 mentions. The main reason is probably that Dovre is a relatively dry area, even if it is exposed. Probably, Rv 3 is closed almost as or perhaps even more often due to stuck trucks. However, I have myself experienced that E6 could be quite an unpleasent place to drive during winter, and it is not always advisable for all trucks / inexperienced drivers even if it is legally open.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

The advantage of Rv. 3 for motorway upgrade is the flat, forested valley floor and lack of development on its route. It is also relatively straight (especially the southern two-thirds).


----------



## Rob73

54°26′S 3°24′E;157163418 said:


> Finally, IMHO mountain driving with an automatic sucks big time! (unless you are driving an electric car which is normally not really automatic but without gear)


What sucks about driving in mountains with an automatic? I could only see an issue if it was a large car with a small engine, or a small car with a very low powered engine. I have both and drive in mountains with both, it makes no difference to me. My automatic is an Audi A6 2.0 TDI Quattro, she goes up and down mountains no problems at all, my manual is an Audi A1 1.4 TFSI, she also works well in the mountains but could do with a bit more power, 122hp isn't a lot compared to the A6's 190hp and significantly more torque.


----------



## Rob73

ChrisZwolle said:


> I can understand that E6 receives so many upgrades, where Rv. 3 only serves traffic going to Trondheim, several major routes branch off of E6 to the northwest. E6 upgrades in Gudbrandsdalen not only improve E6 traffic, but also to Måløy, Ålesund, Åndalsnes, Molde and Kristiansund, plus the towns in Gudbrandsdalen itself.
> 
> It's more of a multi-purpose route compared to Rv. 3. There aren't many major towns in Østerdalen apart from Elverum. Even a major intermediate point like Tynset has a population of only 2,700.
> 
> It's probably a question of focusing funding for only a single purpose (Oslo - Trondheim) or for multiple routes (to the northwestern cities and towns).
> 
> How bad is Dovrefjell in the winter? While exposed, the really exposed section only seems to be the 10 km portion north of Hjerkinn. The approaches of Dovrefjell aren't very steep except for a brief section right after Dombås.


The road from Dombås to Åndalsnes is still substandard, so regardless of the E6 being improved the access to Ålesund, Åndalsnes, Molde and Kristiansund is still poor.


----------



## suburbicide

Rob73 said:


> What sucks about driving in mountains with an automatic? I could only see an issue if it was a large car with a small engine, or a small car with a very low powered engine.


Manual transmissions are quickly becoming a thing of the past. In 2018, 92.6% of cars sold in Norway had automatic transmissions (counting EVs and hybrids).

There's a proposal now to have all driving tests on automatic transmissions.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Wow that's a high figure. In 2017 34.3% of new car sales in the Netherlands had an automatic transmission and the total share of all cars was 21.2%. These numbers were a doubling compared to 2006, so it is definitely on the rise, but not nearly as much as Norway.

Netherlands and Norway have very low car sales per capita though. It will take a lot of time to replace the entire car fleet.


----------



## Gsus

ChrisZwolle said:


> Wow that's a high figure. In 2017 34.3% of new car sales in the Netherlands had an automatic transmission and the total share of all cars was 21.2%. These numbers were a doubling compared to 2006, so it is definitely on the rise, but not nearly as much as Norway.
> 
> Netherlands and Norway have very low car sales per capita though. It will take a lot of time to replace the entire car fleet.


I think its more common in Norway than elsewhere in Europe to buy a more exclusive version of a car. Very few tends to buy the cheapest model without extras, with for instance smallest engine, no adaptive cruise control, leather seats and automatic transmission. At least among medium-full size cars. Often the resell price is taken into account for buyers of new cars, and the entry models tends to fall more in price, and is harder to resell some years later. Often, people here would buy a more exclusive version of for instance an Audi A4 than the entry-version of A6, tho the exclusive A4 may be far more expensive than the cheapest A6.


----------



## IceCheese

^^And the obvious reason for that is that cars are so much more expensive here, so adding 10s of thousands NOK in extras will only account for ~10-20% of the cars total worth. Buying a used Audi without some of the most basic extras doesn't make much sense when it the "fuller version" will set you back only 50K.


----------



## mwalsh

suburbicide said:


> Manual transmissions are quickly becoming a thing of the past. In 2018, 92.6% of cars sold in Norway had automatic transmissions (counting EVs and hybrids).
> 
> There's a proposal now to have all driving tests on automatic transmissions.


Speaking for myself, I just don't want to have to be downshifting all the time while I'm trying to drive AND half-way enjoy the scenery. 

But I especially don't want to be in reverse and on the clutch should I have to back up/down a narrow mountain road with a rock wall on one side and a sheer drop on the other, should I need to let something bigger pass from the opposite direction. Example of a road I'll need to drive - Aurland to Stegastein Viewpoint.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3eyML-vIb4

The 3 days spent in the UK before hitting Norway, sure, I will have a car with a manual transmission. And, yes, I can drive with the steering wheel on the wrong side of the car and the gear stick to the wrong hand.


----------



## OnTheNorthRoad

54°26′S 3°24′E;157224042 said:


> One of the silliest projects so far was the removal of two lanes in (what used to be) one of the main streets of Trondheim, Olav Tryggvasons gate. There is now a "trial" where four lanes are reduced to two PT lanes plus bike lanes and benches etc. The result? Chaotic traffic conditions slows down the buses compared with before, several shops have closed down, and you can just imagine how many people are enjoying those benches in the middle of the traffic during winter. It really frustrates me that public money can be spent this way, and that people still votes for the clowns in charge.* You have the same story in Oslo, btw.*


What are you referring to? I don't know the projects in Trondheim, but pedestrianization, improved conditions for bikers and PT in the city centre is hugely popular. Bilfritt byliv is supported by a big majority and MDG is polling consistently at around 10 %


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

Rob73 said:


> What sucks about driving in mountains with an automatic? I could only see an issue if it was a large car with a small engine, or a small car with a very low powered engine.(…)


This is of course mostly a matter of taste. I prefer to be completely in control. I am out of the country now and currently drives an automatic. It is of course convenient in urban traffic, but in steeper or winding roads not so much. For slippery roads I think manual is a big advantage, if you know how to drive it of course…..


Rob73 said:


> The road from Dombås to Åndalsnes is still substandard, so regardless of the E6 being improved the access to Ålesund, Åndalsnes, Molde and Kristiansund is still poor.


At least for Kristiansund I guess RV 70 would be the choice in any case? 


suburbicide said:


> Manual transmissions are quickly becoming a thing of the past. In 2018, 92.6% of cars sold in Norway had automatic transmissions (counting EVs and hybrids).
> There's a proposal now to have all driving tests on automatic transmissions.





ChrisZwolle said:


> Wow that's a high figure. In 2017 34.3% of new car sales in the Netherlands had an automatic transmission and the total share of all cars was 21.2%. (…)


34 % of new and imported cars in Norway were electric in 2018. Only 38 % or so of car sales in Norway of 2018 were traditional gasoline or diesel cars, with the rest being hybrids. This is of course a big part of the reason for the high percentage in Norway that suburbicide refers to. EVs at least do however actually not have an automatic transmission but a single gear. The response when driving a single speed electric car is obviously very different to a traditional Automatic; maybe there are some similarities with a DSG, but certainly with a lot more low-RPM torque for the EVs which hence are very suitable for Norwegian conditions and terrain.


OnTheNorthRoad said:


> What are you referring to? I don't know the projects in Trondheim, but pedestrianization, improved conditions for bikers and PT in the city centre is hugely popular. Bilfritt byliv is supported by a big majority and MDG is polling consistently at around 10 %


To be honest I have little interest in what is going on in Oslo downtown, even when I lived in the area I only went there a couple of times, but projects like the "Utekontor" (street office) in Øvre Slottsgate clearly shows that their priorities are wrong. 
https://www.nettavisen.no/nyheter/i...-du-vil-slite-med-a-jobbe-der/3423385759.html

Really a waste of precious public real estate and money to prove some kind of principle, much in common with the Olav Tryggvason gate project in Trondheim: 









Regardless of what 10 % of Oslo-people might vote, it really provokes me that public money is wasted this way when the only significant impact is to make life more difficult for people and the creation of polluting traffic jams. Rather, the preferences for the government should be to make life easier for people and hence also enable a more efficient economy, but in a sustainable way. Chronic traffic jams in a small city like Trondheim are not caused by the laws of nature but by dogmatic policies.

I normally ride a bike to work every day myself regardless of where I am living in the world (and I have lived a few places), but I see no reason to force all people into the same habits or to inflexible PT because it will not fit everybody. Hence, I think that bike lanes and paths could be a good thing, but in a lot of the projects of Trondheim, the improvement are minor at best for the bicycles, but sometimes at a great cost for other traffic flow.

Global warming is one of the biggest challenges we are facing today, but it seems like the green party and the like are completely blind to the fact that the very rapid transition we see to electric cars in Norway today, which hopefully soon will be followed by the rest of the world, means that individual car transport no longer will be a contributor of green-house gas emissions. In that respect, the focus should rather be on developing sustainable solutions for power plants and oil/gas production, other industrial sources, and agriculture. Air transport is a special case, I think. It contributes to a rather small part of global emissions, but improved ground transportation should remove much of the need for short and medium range air transport. For a rugged and sparsely populated country like Norway that means improved roads, and again the green party is making the wrong choices. For long range travel, alternative fuels, like H2 might be a more long-term solution. In the meantime, I really think that long range air travel should be limited, but this clearly requires treaties on a global scale, which is difficult, probably more so than development to cleaner technologies. 

When I mentioned individual car transport above, I did not necessarily mean private cars as I certainly think that shared, autonomous EVs with corporate or public ownership will be the solution for most people just a few years ahead. These will need a lot less central parking spots, and, without the human factor, also be able to use the streets far more efficiently than current cars, leaving the many mega projects for PT we see in rather small cities in Norway today, like the metro bus project of Trondheim or Bybanen in Bergen, a testament of short-sightedness.


----------



## IceCheese

54°26′S 3°24′E;157538010 said:


> To be honest I have little interest in what is going on in Oslo downtown, even when I lived in the area I only went there a couple of times, but projects like the "Utekontor" (street office) in Øvre Slottsgate clearly shows that their priorities are wrong.
> https://www.nettavisen.no/nyheter/i...-du-vil-slite-med-a-jobbe-der/3423385759.html
> 
> 
> 
> Regardless of what 10 % of Oslo-people might vote, it really provokes me that public money is wasted this way when the only significant impact is to make life more difficult for people and the creation of polluting traffic jams. Rather, the preferences for the government should be to make life easier for people and hence also enable a more efficient economy, but in a sustainable way. Chronic traffic jams in a small city like Trondheim are not caused by the laws of nature but by dogmatic policies.
> 
> I normally ride a bike to work every day myself regardless of where I am living in the world (and I have lived a few places), but I see no reason to force all people into the same habits or to inflexible PT because it will not fit everybody. Hence, I think that bike lanes and paths could be a good thing, but in a lot of the projects of Trondheim, the improvement are minor at best for the bicycles, but sometimes at a great cost for other traffic flow.
> 
> Global warming is one of the biggest challenges we are facing today, but it seems like the green party and the like are completely blind to the fact that the very rapid transition we see to electric cars in Norway today, which hopefully soon will be followed by the rest of the world, means that individual car transport no longer will be a contributor of green-house gas emissions. In that respect, the focus should rather be on developing sustainable solutions for power plants and oil/gas production, other industrial sources, and agriculture. Air transport is a special case, I think. It contributes to a rather small part of global emissions, but improved ground transportation should remove much of the need for short and medium range air transport. For a rugged and sparsely populated country like Norway that means improved roads, and again the green party is making the wrong choices. For long range travel, alternative fuels, like H2 might be a more long-term solution. In the meantime, I really think that long range air travel should be limited, but this clearly requires treaties on a global scale, which is difficult, probably more so than development to cleaner technologies.


Regarding changes in Trondheim I can't say much, I have only visited the city for shorter periods and never lived there. About Oslo I can only say that if you think the number of people voting MDG/The greens in Oslo represents everyone supporting Bilfritt Byliv, you need to take a look at some newspapers, social media; even just talk to someone living here. You can start with a few easy ones, like faktisk.no or Aftenposten (local newspaper).

Bilfritt Byliv works somewhat as a continuation of earlier projects for different priorities that have been in the works even before MDG got into city hall, like "Kraftige framkommelighetstiltak", and more pedestrianized streets and those projects work on older projects like Torggata and Karl Johan. No need for scapegoats; downtown Oslo has gotten progressively more difficult to drive through since the early 70ies.

Your technological optimism doesn't do much for the city core's main issues; limited space and the relative unattractiveness of streets with high traffic/high speeds. Private cars shouldn't dominate space in down town of any Norwegian city. The solutions are diverging traffic around the city, make it easier to park in the rim of the downtown core; and obviously make it easer to travel by foot, bike or transit. Technology is never going to give you enough space downtown for anything else.

There is obviously a market for trains in Southern and Central Norway, as we are about as densely populated as all the other countries on this continent when you exclude uninhabitable mountains and hillsides. Whether building highways or rails between the biggest cities is the best way forward for transport is very much a political question and I won't state a correct answer. Roads are cheaper (though we spend more money on them) Rails are faster, safer and less discriminatory (think different demographics, who drives between regions). Roads can have busses and are far more flexible, though transport of goods is inefficient based on the way we organize it today, even contributing to social dumping with business practices crossing over from the EEA. Rails are rigid and for the most part underfinanced, under dimensioned, dilapidated lines from the 19th century completely deprived of proper management.

Which ever you prefer, saying the "greens" are making the wrong choices I would like to ask; in which parties do you see politicians making choices at all? Because I see massive continued spending with little guiding in both rails and roads. In spite of that, I think the current spending is likely to turn the regional railroad network into museum lines in the foreseeable future, as it gets too slow and too expensive to run against competing air and road traffic. On the other hand the road network is barely getting any more safe, while travelling times between the main cities are at standstill between our main cities pluss the new roads are built without avoiding old bottle necks or even taking the shortest routes between major population centers (ref E16 and E6. E134 by Kongsberg an honest exception). Ad money spent on road tolls and you're not in any ways better off than in the early 90ies.




> When I mentioned individual car transport above, I did not necessarily mean private cars as I certainly think that shared, autonomous EVs with corporate or public ownership will be the solution for most people just a few years ahead. These will need a lot less central parking spots, and, without the human factor, also be able to use the streets far more efficiently than current cars, leaving the many mega projects for PT we see in rather small cities in Norway today, like the metro bus project of Trondheim or Bybanen in Bergen, a testament of short-sightedness.


Both you and I will be lucky to see anything like that before we're dead. 
https://www.thedrive.com/tech/27023...fatal-self-driving-car-crash?xid=twittershare
https://vegnett.no/2019/03/liten-interesse-for-a-teste-ut-selvkjorende-kjoretoy-i-normal-trafikk/


----------



## Suburbanist

Local press in Bergen was reporting about lobbying for a faster and wider Odda-Bergen connection.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

One of the Ryfast tunnels near Stavanger. The colors of the Norwegian flag. 












Suburbanist said:


> Local press in Bergen was reporting about lobbying for a faster and wider Odda-Bergen connection.


A branch of E134 across the Hardangerfjord was contemplated to create a new route between east and west in Southern Norway. I think it would follow the Folgefonna and Jondal Tunnels and then cross the Hardangerfjord.


----------



## Ingenioren

Is there a re-numbering going on that i missed? The short national road between E6 and Halden has a new number on signs:

2019-04-05_08-39-53 by André Wauthier, on Flickr


----------



## IceCheese

^^It's part of the regional reform: https://vegnett.no/2018/07/na-far-mange-veger-nye-nummer/


----------



## Ingenioren

I wasn't aware there would be changes to the national roads numbering aswell. I tought it would be mostly those Fv-roads that are not signed with a number.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

It's not listed on the official 'Vegkart': https://www.vegvesen.no/vegkart/vegkart/#kartlag:geodata/@288812,6560000,12


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Two major tourist mountain passes open to traffic tomorrow, after their winter closure, these are Fv 55 Sognefjellet and Fv 13 Gaularfjellet. For Sognefjellet this is a record early opening due to less snow than normally.

>> https://www.firda.no/nyheiter/sogne...-ikkje-nyte-paskesola-for-lenge/s/5-15-796337


----------



## Uppsala

How about the E69? Is that road completely open now all the way? Or is still part of the road closed for snow and winter?

E69 is a fascinating road. It ends in North Cape on a tourist spot. E69 is the most northerly E-road that exists at all. I think the reason why E69 is an E-road is just for tourism.


----------



## VITORIA MAN

Ingenioren said:


> Is there a re-numbering going on that i missed? The short national road between E6 and Halden has a new number on signs:
> 
> 2019-04-05_08-39-53 by André Wauthier, on Flickr


Why are there some signs in yellow and one in orange ?


----------



## IceCheese

Orange signs are related to roadworks, i.e. its a temporary reroute.


----------



## Ingenioren

I figured out the mystery in the local paper, the renumbering is to avoid national roads and county roads having the same number.

2019-04-12_11-01-40 by André Wauthier, on Flickr

Here (Fredrikstad) the Rv111 has been given re-signed as Rv22, the Fv110 will be renumbered Fv130. Also Fv22 will be renumbered Fv230.


----------



## MichiH

Ingenioren said:


> Here (Fredrikstad) the Rv111 has been given re-signed as Rv22, the Fv110 will be renumbered Fv130. Also Fv22 will be renumbered Fv230.


Is there any (official) document which routes will be changed?

The official map does still indicate the old numbering: https://www.vegvesen.no/vegkart/vegkart/


----------



## Uppsala

Ingenioren said:


> I figured out the mystery in the local paper, the renumbering is to avoid national roads and county roads having the same number.
> 
> 2019-04-12_11-01-40 by André Wauthier, on Flickr
> 
> Here (Fredrikstad) the Rv111 has been given re-signed as Rv22, the Fv110 will be renumbered Fv130. Also Fv22 will be renumbered Fv230.



Road number 12 in Norway is interesting. First one part is the E12, then a short part is Rv12 and after that a part is Fv12.


----------



## ElviS77

Ingenioren said:


> I figured out the mystery in the local paper, the renumbering is to avoid national roads and county roads having the same number.


Which makes some sense...



Ingenioren said:


> Here (Fredrikstad) the Rv111 has been given re-signed as Rv22, the Fv110 will be renumbered Fv130. Also Fv22 will be renumbered Fv230.


...as does fv 130, but why on earth fv 230 and rv 204? If one wants a road numbering system to make sense, why not go for similar numbers as other roads in the area? Oh, wait, that's exactly what we used to have (and many other countries still do) before we introduced the then stamvei, now riksvei system...


----------



## MattiG

ElviS77 said:


> ... road numbering system to make sense, why not go for before we introduced the then stamvei, now riksvei system...


You are an optimist and still dare to call the Norwegian model a system?


----------



## Ingenioren

MichiH said:


> Is there any (official) document which routes will be changed?
> 
> The official map does still indicate the old numbering: https://www.vegvesen.no/vegkart/vegkart/


This is from the county council approving the changes:
https://einnsyn.ostfoldfk.no/eInnsy...egistryEntryId=1293350&sourceDatabase=EPHORTE

What's funny in this document it doesn't mention Rv204 (must have forgotten?) 

My mistake, the new number will not be Fv230, but Fv220.

It appears Fv101 will change to Fv884 and rerouted via Aspedammen(?) 800 numbers are generally in the far north of Norway so that's a little funny.

Document also says new rules all Fv0-999 will be signed, non-signed Fv will have number above 1000. 
No duplicate fv numbers for different roads in different counties will be allowed.
No changing of numbers on county borders.


----------



## MichiH

^^ Will there be a document per county or is it likely that there will be a final country-wide document one day?
Does it come in effect from the day of signing or from a country-wide date? (I think I read anything about early 2020 long ago?!?!?!)

That non-signed Fv should get numbers above 1,000 means a bigger change but I think it's good and similar to other countries. Norway was an exception with their double-use of Fv numbering. Will both remain being called Fv?

Does anything change about maintenance? Who will be responsible for Rv, Fv and 4-digit Fv?


----------



## ElviS77

Ingenioren said:


> Document also says new rules all Fv0-999 will be signed, non-signed Fv will have number above 1000.
> No duplicate fv numbers for different roads in different counties will be allowed.
> No changing of numbers on county borders.


This is reasonable, but why, oh why, can't Østfold (and Akershus) simply keep 1xx numbers? If there are any issues with other 1xx roads in other counties, renumber those, not fv 101 for effing's sake... Given that the minor county roads will become four-digit anyway, we're not talking hundreds of renumberings (and even if we were, those would make sense!).


----------



## ElviS77

And when we're at it, what's with the randomly green-numbered three-digit riksveier (national roads)? Sure, I do understand that certain shorter, important roads ought to remain national, but since some of them have already been made spurs of main national or E roads (E18 to Torp Airport, for instance), it just makes the mess even worse. The Swedes have kept both national and county roads blue-signed, and it doesn't seem to be a massive problem for their bureaucracy, why should ours struggle so badly..?


----------



## ElviS77

MichiH said:


> Does anything change about maintenance? Who will be responsible for Rv, Fv and 4-digit Fv?


This is the easy part. Riksveier (including E routes) are the responsibility of the national government, Fylkesveier are mainly the responsibility of the counties. Beyond 2020, it seems that even planning and construction of county roads will be given to the counties.


----------



## devo

OulaL said:


> I asked this in the International Border Crossing thread but no answer was given, maybe you know better...
> 
> Is the border crossing on E18 (Ørje/Hån) open for non-motor traffic; and if not, is there any signage to any alternative route? Looking at Street View, the only road leading to the border from the Norwegian side seems to be an expressway. I don't know how it looks when coming from Sweden.


Unless photos from the ground can confirm there are no prohibitive signs regarding pedestrians and bicycles it seems, from these areal photos below, to be some sort of path/road leading underneath E 18 to the border facility.

I gave this answer in the IBC thread ^^


devo said:


> Technically the closest crossing seems to be here:
> https://goo.gl/maps/Sv8LyH1KX9r5UBxS9
> 
> This is really weird. Here are the end of motorway restriction signs:
> https://goo.gl/maps/LuYmy6RjQEY7ndTD7
> 
> So one would think they have no start of restriction signs at the last onramp (to save signs or whatever) before the border, but they do:
> https://goo.gl/maps/jEGWABszCjpWM9QFA
> 
> I'm not 100% sure about this but usually restrictions end before or mid-junction and not after like here. Ending before the regular traffic is supposed to join is of course the only logical thing to do but hey.
> 
> And the old road does not join before the border as can be confirmed through both the official visveg.no site which has an areal photo layer that shows this situation at the border:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old road is the stub on the right next to the buildings and lake.
> Curiously one can get _off_ the road before start of restrictions.


----------



## OulaL

Sorry, I meant that no one hasn't actually been there themselves and told what it actually looks like.



> The Swedish side is also an express road (2+1).


Really? How far east does that go?

Where is the Sweden-bound customs office located nowadays?


----------



## ChrisZwolle

I drove through there in 2018, but didn't pay attention to the cycling routes.

There is no Swedish customs directly on E18, there is a sign that directs 'goods to declare' to Road 619, which is just off E18, I suppose it's the former E18 to Töcksfors. There is a customs station there. They do sometimes performs checks right on E18, I've seen them closing the road with a gate and checking vehicles.


----------



## Ingenioren

1:00 old road crossing the border.



OulaL said:


> Really? How far east does that go?


Untill Töcksfors, it's not signed as an expressway but it has a center barrier and 2+1, 100km/h limit.

Bikeroute across Ørje border:
http://www.varmost.net/getfile.php/4362869.1891.qztwqbawpswu77/Unionsleden_Norge_20181023.pdf


----------



## Grotlaufen

ChrisZwolle said:


> Judging the satellite imagery, it appears that there is no bicycle facility there. The old road has been severed by the new express road. The Swedish side is also an express road (2+1).


The 2+1 road closest to the border is not an expressway ("motortrafikled") and it is legal to bike there. At the junction next to Hån there is this sign for instance: https://goo.gl/maps/2ZNA716MsJB5hRuh7


(Btw, when looking at the distance signs on the new Norwegian road I must say I am surprised they give the distance to Stockholm and the border itself but not to Karlstad and/or Årjäng, or some important destination in Värmland at all: https://goo.gl/maps/hBDG89k3RvfxSkxu6


----------



## OulaL

^^ well, coming the other way, Oslo is signposted in Stockholm...


----------



## MattiG

Grotlaufen said:


> (Btw, when looking at the distance signs on the new Norwegian road I must say I am surprised they give the distance to Stockholm and the border itself but not to Karlstad and/or Årjäng, or some important destination in Värmland at all: https://goo.gl/maps/hBDG89k3RvfxSkxu6


Are there important destinations in Värmland?


----------



## Grotlaufen

MattiG said:


> Are there important destinations in Värmland?


I was thinking primarily of Karlstad (65k inh.). Outside of Värmland and a big highway node in itself which could be signed would be Örebro (120k inh.).


----------



## MattiG

Grotlaufen said:


> I was thinking primarily of Karlstad (65k inh.). Outside of Värmland and a big highway node in itself which could be signed would be Örebro (120k inh.).


Norway has a manner to show pretty distant cities in the confirmation signs. The places beyond the border are seldom signed except the final destination.

https://www.google.fi/maps/@69.6908...4!1s5p359wX0kcDzl52i6YMV1A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

https://www.google.fi/maps/@66.3145...4!1sYmNVe7V2IkWKGMXyityK-g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

https://www.google.fi/maps/@63.4683...4!1s_7AS-zMe4V4uIs-hfaWbQA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656


----------



## ElviS77

^^
Very true. Typically, one gets one fairly distant control city/town plus the closest reasonably significant place (Tana Bru is basically just what it says in Norwegian - a bridge - but also a junction, and there's nothing else there. They could have posted Alta instead of Narvik, but I think they enjoy these very far distances (Narvik is even posted in Trondheim, where there are several obvious towns closer which would have served the same purpose. Of course, along some busier highways in less rural areas, it's not that uncommon to see three or even four place names listed (Trondheim, Hamar, Gardermoen, for instance).


----------



## MattiG

ElviS77 said:


> ^^
> Very true. Typically, one gets one fairly distant control city/town plus the closest reasonably significant place (Tana Bru is basically just what it says in Norwegian - a bridge - but also a junction, and there's nothing else there. They could have posted Alta instead of Narvik, but I think they enjoy these very far distances (Narvik is even posted in Trondheim, where there are several obvious towns closer which would have served the same purpose. Of course, along some busier highways in less rural areas, it's not that uncommon to see three or even four place names listed (Trondheim, Hamar, Gardermoen, for instance).


Tana Bru is a logical place to show at the sign because E6 and E75 meet there, as well as road 98 over Ifjordfjellet, 890 to Varangerhalvöya, and 895 to Finland via Polmak.

I and my wife have a tradition to visit the kiosk in Tana Bru every time we happen to visit the region. This summer we even stayed overnight in a motel room upstairs. 

https://www.google.fi/maps/@70.1996...4!1s2o9QbUhmUt08F-vKMyfBLw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656


----------



## ElviS77

^^
Totally agree, Varangerbotn would be the only alternative. My point was simply how scarsely populated that part of Norway is...


----------



## MattiG

ElviS77 said:


> ^^
> Totally agree, Varangerbotn would be the only alternative. My point was simply how scarsely populated that part of Norway is...


Yes, it is, as well as the large wilderness areas in Finland.

The most distant place of our holiday trip last summer was the end of the forest road at Grensefossen, a few kilometers to the Finnish-Norwegian-Russian tripoint, in Norway. First, almost 100 kilometers from Kirkenes to Nyrud, and finally 20 kilometers on quite a bad forest road. What is interesting, there is about 15 kilometers only to the end of a similar forest road in Finland. However, the shortest road between these two points is 415 kilometers.


----------



## Shifty2k5

ChrisZwolle said:


> I drove through there in 2018, but didn't pay attention to the cycling routes.
> 
> There is no Swedish customs directly on E18, there is a sign that directs 'goods to declare' to Road 619, which is just off E18, I suppose it's the former E18 to Töcksfors. There is a customs station there. They do sometimes performs checks right on E18, I've seen them closing the road with a gate and checking vehicles.


A new toll station is currently under construction on the Swedish side. It will open during the autumn and it is situated on the south side of E18 close to the border. The project includes new ramps and parking lots.


----------



## OulaL

> A new toll station is currently under construction on the Swedish side.


Sorry to nitpick but I guess you mean "customs station".

"Toll", despite meaning "customs" in Norwegian, means "payment for road use" in English and I assume that will not be the case here.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

*Varodd Bridge*

I tried to find some recent photos of the E18 Varodd Bridge project near Kristiansand, but photos appear to be rare, Google image doesn't show much, the Vegvesen site doesn't have much and the Vegvesen Facebook site also doesn't have much (a post in April and June). There have been no press release about the project for over half a year, yet this project is scheduled to be completed next year.

From a June 2019 Facebook post (photo could be older?)


----------



## Shifty2k5

OulaL said:


> Sorry to nitpick but I guess you mean "customs station".
> 
> "Toll", despite meaning "customs" in Norwegian, means "payment for road use" in English and I assume that will not be the case here.


Correct! It's obviously a customs station. My mistake.


----------



## devo

ChrisZwolle said:


> I tried to find some recent photos of the E18 Varodd Bridge project near Kristiansand, but photos appear to be rare, Google image doesn't show much, the Vegvesen site doesn't have much and the Vegvesen Facebook site also doesn't have much (a post in April and June). There have been no press release about the project for over half a year, yet this project is scheduled to be completed next year.
> 
> From a June 2019 Facebook post (photo could be older?)


I believe the first main span (closest to the camera) is completed, the photo being from June seems to be correct. I live here so next time I pass the bridge I could check.
One of the reasons for the lack of photos might be that it's difficult to take clear photos unless you're in a helicopter/drone but this is complicated because of the nearby Kjevik airport. Taking photos from the ground or another hill won't show the progress as clear because of the angle and the other bridges obstructing the view.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

*Ryfast*

The Ryfylke Tunnel near Stavanger will open to traffic on 30 December 2019. 

The Hundvåg Tunnel and Eiganes Tunnel will open in February 2020.

Press release: https://www.vegvesen.no/om+statens+...ngsarkiv/Region+vest/apningsdatoen-er-bestemt

The Ryfylke Tunnel will have at least 3 records;

* it is the world's longest undersea tunnel at 14.4 km
* it is the world's deepest undersea tunnel at -292 meters
* it is Europe's longest 2x2 tunnel

The Ryfylke Tunnel and Hundvåg Tunnel (5.6 km) are almost connected, the road briefly reaches the surface for an interchange. So when driving from Stavanger to Tau there is 20 kilometers of near-continuous tunnel.

The east tunnel portal at Solbakk:


----------



## devo

Varoddbroa update (E 18, Kristiansand):

The bridge has three pillars, and the bridge segments stretches out simultaneously in both directions from each pillar. Pictures below are taken today from the old bridge (1956) going west-east. Refer to the earlier post by ChrisZwolle for an overview of the whole situation.

The first image shows the progress between pillar and bridge segment one and two, and the second between segment two and three. Note that segment three is done and therefore has no framework on its western end.


















I would guess it's about two-three weeks left till completion, at most.

Also note the ridiculous clearance between the old and new bridge. The bridge will be widened a couple of meters to its full with (southward) after the old bridge (1956) has been demolished. This only applies to segment one and two, the third segment has clearance for the whole width (three lanes+pedestrian/bike path).

EDIT: With regard to what I mentioned earlier the first span is not completed, but the segment is completed, which is what I actually meant (as the framework has been moved over to segment one).


----------



## ChrisZwolle

*E6 Kolomoen - Moelv*

The first 12 kilometers of the new E6 motorway to Moelv will open on 8 October: between Kolomoen (Rv. 3) and Kåterud.

Article: https://www.bygg.no/article/1409377


----------



## ChrisZwolle

*E134 Mælefjell Tunnel*

The 9.4 kilometer long Mælefjell Tunnel of E134, it is scheduled to open soon.

Location: https://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=59.5591&mlon=8.6864#map=12/59.5591/8.6864


----------



## Tronni

The rebuilding of PP-krysset on Fv. 356 in Porsgrunn is starting for real this time (paid article): https://www.ta.no/nyheter/samferdse...t-det-betyr-flere-stengte-veier/s/5-50-821988 

This is what the intersection will look like when it is finished sometime next year:


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Those bike lanes are very 'Dutch'. Is that common in Norway? I haven't seen them often at all, but I drove only minimally in large cities.


----------



## Tronni

I have only seen pictures of them in Oslo, so I don't think they are very common. I know I am part of the minority on this, but I welcome more bike lanes in the area (and in general). 

Also, here is some more information about the project from Bypakke Grenland's website. It's in Norwegian, unfortunately: https://bypakka.no/prosjekt/fv-356-pp-krysset-3/


----------



## IceCheese

ChrisZwolle said:


> Those bike lanes are very 'Dutch'. Is that common in Norway? I haven't seen them often at all, but I drove only minimally in large cities.


It's an Oslo city standard (not Statens Vegvesen). Seems it's being picked up in some other cities/counties as well.


----------



## pai nosso

ChrisZwolle said:


> Those bike lanes are very 'Dutch'. Is that common in Norway? I haven't seen them often at all, but I drove only minimally in large cities.


That invasion has also started in Portugal on the last 2/3 years.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

IceCheese said:


> It's an Oslo city standard (not Statens Vegvesen). Seems it's being picked up in some other cities/counties as well.


I am not familiar with the "Oslo city standard", but such bike lanes have existed in Trondheim for decades.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

Nye veier has answered a request from the government on widening of their portfolio to new sections in the Norwegian road network. Their list in their reply is fairly extensive. Alas they do not propose motorways for all the sections:
https://www.regjeringen.no/contenta...nye-veiers-svar-tilleggsoppdrag-oppdrag-1.pdf 

Western Norway
• E39 Ålgård – Hove 
• E39 Bokn – Os 
• E39 Ålesund – Molde 
South-Eastern Norway to Central Norway:
• E136 Dombås – Vestnes 
• E6 Otta – Ulsberg 
• Rv. 3 Kolomoen – Ulsberg 
Central Norway 
• E6 Åsen – Steinkjer 
• E14 Stjørdal – Meråker (border with Sweden) 
• E39 Klett – Harangen 
Northern Norway
• E8 Tromsø – Nordkjosbotn 
• E6 Fauske – Bognes 
• Rv. 80 Bodø – Fauske 
South-eastern Norway:
• Transport needs in and around Oslo 
• Fv. 22 Hvam - Gjelleråsen 
• Rv. 4 Oslo – Mjøsbrua 
• Rv. 25 Hamar – Løten 
South-Eastern Norway to Western Norway 
• E134 Connection between east and west


----------



## suburbicide

54°26′S 3°24′E;163012084 said:


> I am not familiar with the "Oslo city standard", but such bike lanes have existed in Trondheim for decades.


With red bike lanes and "bike boxes" in front of intersections?


----------



## ElviS77

54°26′S 3°24′E;163012276 said:


> Nye veier has answered a request from the government on widening of their portfolio to new sections in the Norwegian road network. Their list in their reply is fairly extensive.


It is so extensive that it seems more like a wet dream than something that they actually believe will become reality with the probability of tighter budgets around the corner and the reality of toll protests already here. That said, there are many interesting thoughts there (increased speed limits on 1+1/2+1 roads, for instance)… and a few truly annoying ones: Why is a brand new four-lane Oslo-Bergen link something worth contemplating whereas closing gaps Oslo-Trondheim isn't considered worthy of anything more than a 2-lane undivided 80/90 km/h road? It reeks of politics.


----------



## IceCheese

suburbicide said:


> With red bike lanes and "bike boxes" in front of intersections?


They're also wider than the ones SVV uses.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

^^ Actually, the road work indicated by the yellow sign also means that the google image is not up to date here. As part of the Metrobuss project, that street has been widened with PT-lanes in each directions. The bike lane shown has been removed and there is now a separate bike road on the side. The Metrobuss project is quite controversial as a lot of money has been spent with seemingly not much improvement in service for most people, but at least the separation of bike, pedestrian, and car traffic on most of the university (https://goo.gl/maps/c6K6VpeE3uPQS5F47 ) campus area makes sense from a safety point of view.

About Metrobuss:
https://www.lifeinnorway.net/the-all-new-bus-system-in-trondheim/

Bus map including Metrobuss:
https://www.atb.no/getfile.php/1316513-1567687296/Rutekart_2019/AtB_linjekart august 2019.pdf



suburbicide said:


> With red bike lanes and "bike boxes" in front of intersections?


Not for decades regarding the bike boxes, as far as I can tell the first was made around 2013:https://miljopakken.no/prosjekter/sykkelfelt-i-kjopmannsgata 

Red asphalt in bike lanes has been around much longer, but I have not been able to find out when they started. My first personal experience was Gamle Oslovei, and Norge i bilder shows that it was present in 1999:
https://norgeibilder.no/?x=268068&y...1350&layers=&plannedOmlop=0&plannedGeovekst=0
Unfortunately the next older image available on this site is from 1964....

Not sure if it is still current, but I found this guideline for bike lanes and roads in Trondheim. There seems to be quite a lot of inspiration from Netherlands....
https://www.sykkelbynettverket.no/_attachment/1118991/binary/1078751?download=true.



ElviS77 said:


> It is so extensive that it seems more like a wet dream than something that they actually believe will become reality with the probability of tighter budgets around the corner and the reality of toll protests already here. That said, there are many interesting thoughts there (increased speed limits on 1+1/2+1 roads, for instance)… and a few truly annoying ones: Why is a brand new four-lane Oslo-Bergen link something worth contemplating whereas closing gaps Oslo-Trondheim isn't considered worthy of anything more than a 2-lane undivided 80/90 km/h road? It reeks of politics.


Wet dream, perhaps, but Nye veier is making some wet dreams true already ;-) With regards to your latter point(East-West vs South-North), I assume it could have something to do with how the assignment was written. My guess is however that the E-134 project will be fairly far down on the priority list once cost / benefit is given an objective, serious consideration. With regards to south-north, it would be preferrable to focus on RV3 rather than e.g. Dombås-Ulsberg, IMO.


----------



## Suburbanist

Toll revolts might bring road development to a standstill. Although I get the feeling the reaction is more against urban tolls than project-specific tolls that expire after costs are paid.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Yes, but the new government budget includes toll cuts only on rural toll projects. 

I think the anti-toll sentiment is indeed more against the urban congestion charges, which don't offer a clear advantage to motorists. There is still congestion and road improvements are minor, especially those small town 'bomringer'. You shouldn't need tolls to finance roundabouts, bike paths or a minor bridge.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

^^ Actually, there is also some minor cuts on tolls for the urban packages, which make the greens hesitant to accept the deal, even if it also includes fresh money to PT. 

Congestion charges is not really a term in Norway. Quite a lot of the urban toll money actually goes to reduce the capacity of cars through the cities. All the major cities of Norway are now ruled by various leftist alliances, and they seem to think that congestion is a good thing. Congestion reduces the number of cars in the end, but I am not sure whether this is better neither for local pollution nor the climate. Cars in a jam have larger emissions per km than in flowing traffic, and lots of people make great detours to avoid the worst areas.


----------



## Suburbanist

In Bergen I heard about some ideas of doubling the road tolls and expanding its reach in the next 10 years while financing 4 new light rail projects... but seems a far fetched idea.


----------



## Rob73

In Molde the plan is to close down Storgata and implement a toll ring, closing down Storgata will force more cars to use the roads above the town through the suburbs and kill what's left of the inner city shopping, so we will end up with more supermarkets, hairdressers and budget shops and all the other shops will migrate to the proposed expansion of Roseby shopping mall. The toll ring will kill property prices outside of the ring. 

The Domdås Vestnes improvements are a given IMO, the road has already been improved on the Vestness end so it's a no brainer to finalise the rest. Vestness to Ålesund is a good road, all it needs are a couple of stretches of 2+1 going up to the to Ørskogfjellet on each side. There is also a need to improve the Åndalsnes Molde link and finding some way of crossing Langfjord. 

I wish Nye Veier would hurry up and start on Møreaksen, it's looking like it will turn into a political mess like the Molde Hospital debacle, now a lot of people want to build Romsdalsaksen instead which IMO doesn't solve the problem of Molde Ålesund but rather Molde Åndalsnes, it also fails in providing a ferry free crossing to Midsund and Gossa which Møreasken provides.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

*E6 Tana Bru*

The new Tana Bridge of E6 in Finnmark won't open in December 2019, but has been delayed to August 2020.









Many photos: https://photos.google.com/share/AF1...?key=NEFxVDBsYVpOTnNTS2Fubm5xdEt0ZHRUUWdKQ1F3


----------



## Tronni

Gsus said:


> The 3,5 km section between Vøien and Kjørbo (intersection with E18 in Sandvika) opened to traffic on four lanes today. At the same time, the 4 km long four lane connecting section between Vøyen and Bjørum sag, that opened to traffic in 2009 was resigned as a motorway, so that the complete section between the E18-intersection and Bjørum sag (7,5 km) now is signed as a motorway.


Just in case someone didn't know or didn't see Gsus's post in the motorway opening thread.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

*Rogfast*

The tender for a tunnel contract of the Rogfast megaproject was canceled in September, after the only qualified bidder was 1 billion NOK over budget. This is the central Kvitsøy contract, which includes about a third of the Boknafjord Tunnel length, plus the connection to Kvitsøy. 

According to Bygg.no, the project has now been delayed from 2026 to 2029: Rogfast tidligst ferdig i 2029

It makes you wonder if it is useful to scrap the Kvitsøy link from the project. That way you can save a lot of money. There are only like 400-500 inhabitants on Kvitsøy. 

I wonder if it would be possible to construct only the exit ramp stubs and then build the tunnel to Kvitsøy at a later stage without interrupting traffic in the Boknafjord Tunnel. The Kvitsøy link tunnel is planned to be 4 kilometers long.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

^^ There are a lot of rocks that have to be transported out from the tunnel and deposited somewhere, and Kvitsøy is a convenient place in the middle. Without it both the construction time and cost would have been affected. Also, the tunnel would be a safety measure. Hence it is not only about those few hundred people. However, it can be questioned whether the Kvitsøy link should be a full standard tunnel w/ ramps or just made to a standard suitabe for the construction phase now and as an emergency tunnel later.


----------



## MattiG

54°26′S 3°24′E;163999152 said:


> ^^ There are a lot of rocks that have to be transported out from the tunnel and deposited somewhere, and Kvitsøy is a convenient place in the middle. Without it both the construction time and cost would have been affected. Also, the tunnel would be a safety measure. Hence it is not only about those few hundred people. However, it can be questioned whether the Kvitsøy link should be a full standard tunnel w/ ramps or just made to a standard suitabe for the construction phase now and as an emergency tunnel later.


The mid section of the main tunnel will be drilled starting from Kvitsøy. Thus, the tunnel is for both input and output, and it is on the critical path. The cost of the interchange most probably is a pretty minimal fraction of the total cost.

Kvitsøy is to receive about one third of the excess rock masses, about 2.2 million cubic meters. That is quite many truck loads, and an adequate road will be needed.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

The original schedule had included three tunnel boring segments: north, central and south. But now that the start of the central part is significantly delayed, won't it be possible to just continue from the north and south contracts? Much like conventional tunneling.


----------



## MattiG

ChrisZwolle said:


> The original schedule had included three tunnel boring segments: north, central and south. But now that the start of the central part is significantly delayed, won't it be possible to just continue from the north and south contracts? Much like conventional tunneling.


Of course, but that would increase the boring time substantially. And the aircon system still needs to be set up in Kvitsøy. The Kvitsøy tunnel length is less than 4 % of the total length of the tunnels. I am pretty suspicious on getting any cost savings from dropping it.


----------



## devo

We had an issue with the new E 39 around Mandal, the council wanted to change a wild life underpass to an overpass, and this could not be done without adjusting the contract, i.e. causing delays. The more these contracts need to be adjusted, the more delay, this minor change could have caused a six month delay because of the tight scheduling regarding surfacing work and the winter season.

I would assume extending the north and south part of the Rogfast contracts would cause a significant delay as those contracts would basically need to be re-negotiated.

However, going ahead with the other two contracts on the assumption that the third will be resolved could be a possibility.


----------



## MichiH

MichiH said:


> *E18:* Dordal – Rugtvedt 17km (Spring 2017 to December 2019) – ? – map


The E18 section is to be opened on December 2 according to the project site.


----------



## MattiG

*Rv40 in 1940*

The Finnish magazine Suomen Kuvalehti contains an article about the Riksvei 50 in the issue 40 in 1940. There are numerous photos, but some of them are with any location reference.

Five of them:









_Between Hammerfest and Karasjok_


















_Hammerfest_


















_Dovre_


----------



## Uppsala

^^
Here is Dovregubbens Hall https://www.google.se/maps/@62.1744...s4y9H1ia2dX_7Gu-jz9g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=sv

And this is E6 today very close to Dovregubbens Hall  https://www.google.se/maps/@62.1738...n_xZaNeeLhHX1_-3GzrA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=sv


----------



## IceCheese

MattiG said:


> The Finnish magazine Suomen Kuvalehti contains an article about the Riksvei 50 in the issue 40 in 1940. There are numerous photos, but some of them are with any location reference.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Hammerfest_


Not many buildings survived the war in Hammerfest


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

^^ Whereas the German occupants actually built quite a bit of infrastructure in Norway with the aid of slave labor, that was certainly not the end-result for Finnmark....
https://norskfolkemuseum.no/en/scorched-earth-


----------



## Gsus

A video from the soon to be opened (december 2nd) new E18 through Bamble:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YIRHSLlMSE0&feature=youtu.be&fbclid=IwAR00TJlOJluC14WwdbhANtWAVa9hv_1KtqXDLhlVaFe8PA3ePbl5KCen6o4

I wonder why this road seems to mostly have wide shoulders (except for on bridges), in compared to Arendal-Tvedestrand which opened in july and has narrow (1,5m). "Funny" sight widenings on some of the bridges also.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

Gsus said:


> I wonder why this road seems to mostly have wide shoulders (except for on bridges), in compared to Arendal-Tvedestrand which opened in july and has narrow (1,5m).


Perhaps due to lower AADT on A-T? For future projects, narrow shoulders on motorways are no longer within the Norwegian highway norms, btw, and require an excemption: https://www.vegvesen.no/_attachment...Håndbok+N100+Veg-+og+gateutforming+(6+MB).pdf .


----------



## Gsus

54°26′S 3°24′E;164479568 said:


> Perhaps due to lower AADT on A-T? For future projects, narrow shoulders on motorways are no longer within the Norwegian highway norms, btw, and require an excemption: https://www.vegvesen.no/_attachment...Håndbok+N100+Veg-+og+gateutforming+(6+MB).pdf .


I don`t find that the case, as Arendal-Tvedestrand has an higher AADT than Rugtvedt-Dørdal. All parts of the old road between Arendal-Tvedestrand had more than 12000 already, while only the northernmost part of Rugtvedt-Dørdal (which carries a lot of local traffic) has more than 12000 today. The rest is ranging from ca. 10000-12000, so I don`t really see why that section should reach 20000 sooner than Arendal-Tvedestrand. Both roads should have been projected and buildt after the 2013-edition of the N100. 

Regarding the narrow shoulders, it might be back soon, or at least in some situations: https://www.vegvesen.no/_attachment/2846578/binary/1349409?fast_title=Utredning+smal+firefelt+ved+ÅDT+6000-20000.pdf (page 19-20).

Anyway, E18 between Oslo and Kristiansand will be of quite high throughout standard (by Norwegian means) when the section in Bamble opens next week. Only 10 km between Akland and Tvedestrand will be left as a two lane road without either motorway or expressway (two-three lanes). And that section is`nt the worst one either, with the exception of two low shorter tunnels. The last few kilometers into Kristiansand does`nt have motorway standard, but is and ok grade-separated four lane road


----------



## ChrisZwolle

*Harstad*

The Harstadås Tunnel in Harstad is scheduled to open on 4 January 2020. It is a bypass of the Harstad city center. Harstad is located in Northern Norway.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

The Chinese-led Beitstadsund Bridge project is delayed to 2020: https://www.vegvesen.no/Fylkesveg/f...arkiv/utsatt-apning-av-ny-fylkesveg-17-og-720


----------



## devo

Gsus said:


> A video from the soon to be opened (december 2nd) new E18 through Bamble:
> 
> [...]
> 
> I wonder why this road seems to mostly have wide shoulders (except for on bridges), in compared to Arendal-Tvedestrand which opened in july and has narrow (1,5m). "Funny" sight widenings on some of the bridges also.


Mid-planning they (politicians) changed the profile to wide shoulders but at this time the bridges' design had already been finalized, widening them would require a new design (re-calculating the whole structure etc.). 
I couldn't find a source right now but if you sift through the papers it's there somewhere.


----------



## suburbicide

Gsus said:


> A video from the soon to be opened (december 2nd) new E18 through Bamble:
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YIRHSLlMSE0&feature=youtu.be&fbclid=IwAR00TJlOJluC14WwdbhANtWAVa9hv_1KtqXDLhlVaFe8PA3ePbl5KCen6o4


Looks like this road has continuous guard rail on the sides? Nye Veier may build cheaper but they also build uglier. 

Edit: Or is this due to some new requirement?


----------



## Stuu

Gsus said:


> A video from the soon to be opened (december 2nd) new E18 through Bamble:
> ]
> 
> I wonder why this road seems to mostly have wide shoulders (except for on bridges), in compared to Arendal-Tvedestrand which opened in july and has narrow (1,5m). "Funny" sight widenings on some of the bridges also.


Odd that it only has lighting on one side as well, and I'm not sure why a rural motorway needs lighting anyway?


----------



## ChrisZwolle

devo said:


> Mid-planning they (politicians) changed the profile to wide shoulders but at this time the bridges' design had already been finalized, widening them would require a new design (re-calculating the whole structure etc.).


Norwegian motorways do seem to have inconsistent design standards. That's not really a problem with low traffic volumes, but you'll notice it on busier motorways / times. 

Last year I drove on E6 along Mjøsa, traffic was fairly busy and you could notice that the geometry isn't as good as France, Germany or the Netherlands. The lanes seem a bit narrow, the inside and outside shoulders are narrow and the horizontal and vertical alignment appears to have lower standards. It didn't feel as comfortable to drive 110 as you would in other countries. 

Also, what kind of crash barrier standards do they have along Norwegian motorways? E6 along Mjøsa has a weird kind of crash barrier that looks more like a gate than an actual crash barrier that is capable of retaining vehicles or prevent them from tipping over.


----------



## suburbicide

ChrisZwolle said:


> Also, what kind of crash barrier standards do they have along Norwegian motorways? E6 along Mjøsa has a weird kind of crash barrier that looks more like a gate than an actual crash barrier that is capable of retaining vehicles or prevent them from tipping over.


The requirements can be found on page 46 in this manual:

https://www.vegvesen.no/_attachment...icle+Restraint+Systems+and+Roadside+Areas.pdf

The general requirement for motorways seems to be containment level N2, but there are exceptions. For the rail in the median, it depends on the amount of heavy traffic (H1, H2 or L2). There are some details on what the various containment levels entail in appendix 1. N2 means the rail will have to handle a 1500 kg car going at 110 km/h at a 20 degree angle.

The tubular rail barrier is mainly used for aesthetic reasons. I'm assuming it meets the N2 criteria.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Thanks, I see. N2 is considered adequate for 80 km/h in the Netherlands, motorways usually have H2 or H3, with H4 on bridges.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

*Møreaksen*

It was decided to develop the 'Møreaksen' link of E39 between Ålesund and Molde in December 2016. However, not uncommonly for Norway, it was decided late in the process to seek a lower construction cost and evaluate another alternative: Romsdalsaksen.

However a presentation given by Statens Vegvesen today shows that Møreaksen is the best alternative after all...


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

ChrisZwolle said:


> Thanks, I see. N2 is considered adequate for 80 km/h in the Netherlands, motorways usually have H2 or H3, with H4 on bridges.


I assume that most Dutch motorways have a lot more traffic, and in particular truck traffic, than E6 Mjøsa.

Some of the single-tube guardrails are also H1, which according to the above linked document qualify as medianguardrail of narrow motorways. See overview over approved median guardrails in Norway:
https://www.vegvesen.no/***/Teknolo...&rekkverktype=center&method=alle&sok=Vis+alle
https://www.vegvesen.no/***/teknologi/Rekkverk+og+master/Sok+etter+godkjent+produkt/Vegutstyr/_image/2749429.jpeg?_encoded=2f66666666666678302f30382f3b2930303231286874646977656c616373&_ts=16bd6e4eec0


----------



## ChrisZwolle

I was involved in a project that used H2-W5 crash barriers on a two-lane road with 8,000 vehicles per day and a 100 km/h speed limit. 

Though N2 appears to be fairly widely employed on European motorways, from what I've heard it is also standard in Spain. These are typical one-sided crash barriers. 

The Netherlands used H1 in the past, but they have switched to a minimum of H2 on motorways and some other roads. Two-sided crash barriers used to be the norm on almost any road, but they are now implementing lower standard one-sided barriers on lower class roads with the new CE approval. In the Netherlands this is seen as a step backwards.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

^^ It should be a matter of cost optimization, in the end, i.e. where do you get most safety for your bucks. I have no idea what the cost difference between the different types of guardrail are, but although it happens also in Norway that trucks run over the median guard rail, I have the feeling such accidents are far down on the list of causes of serious traffic injuries and deaths. The difference between a center guard rail and the situation on most Norwegian highways, no center guard rail, is on the other hand very large. Note that trucks are not allowed to drive faster than 80 km/h in Norway in any case. The point with the single tube design is that you need only one guard rail, and not two. Not only does this save cost on the guard rail itself, it also means that the total road width can be more efficiently utilized.


----------



## Shifty2k5

Also, one factor you have to consider when it comes to guard rails in the Nordic countries is how much it blocks the snow when the road is cleared. In Sweden we call this "snöplogsklass" which basically means "snow clearing classification". Snöplogsklass is rated from 1 - 4 (4 is most suitable for snow).

The classic W-beam is rated 3 and the Swedish classic "kohlswa" is rated 4.
This is why you often see different types of guard rails in the northern part of Sweden compared to the southern part.


----------



## MattiG

Shifty2k5 said:


> Also, one factor you have to consider when it comes to guard rails in the Nordic countries is how much it blocks the snow when the road is cleared. In Sweden we call this "snöplogsklass" which basically means "snow clearing classification". Snöplogsklass is rated from 1 - 4 (4 is most suitable for snow).
> 
> The classic W-beam is rated 3 and the Swedish classic "kohlswa" is rated 4.
> This is why you often see different types of guard rails in the northern part of Sweden compared to the southern part.


A double-sided W beam is somewhat harmful, because its aerodynamics makes it very effective in accumulating snow. This is why most of the new middle barriers in Finland are tubular ones. A typical setup is a single boxbeam, but installations made of 2+2 O-profile tubes are in place, too. 

The snow has other implications too: The traffic signs need to be designed to stand the horizontal impact loads caused by ploughing. The Finnish standards show the maximum ploughing load to be 4 kN/m2, for an area on 2x2 meters. (Thus a large directional sign must be able to carry a load equal to a weight of a passenger car.) As the most impact occurs at the height of 0.5...2.5 meters, it is recommended that smaller signs are positioned higher than 2.5 meters above the road. I believe that the horizontal impact in the mountain roads in Norway is substantially higher. That might explain why the Norwergian directional signs are made quite small.


----------



## Rob73

ChrisZwolle said:


> It was decided to develop the 'Møreaksen' link of E39 between Ålesund and Molde in December 2016. However, not uncommonly for Norway, it was decided late in the process to seek a lower construction cost and evaluate another alternative: Romsdalsaksen.
> 
> However a presentation given by Statens Vegvesen today shows that Møreaksen is the best alternative after all...


Most of the people living in and around Molde were supporting Møreaksen, I know I was, it also links up two islands to the mainland, Gossen and Midsund, and removes 4 ferry routes. 

Once built then I can see the next battle in this region, do we really need three airports so close together. It will probably be even more heated than the hospital debate!


----------



## suburbicide

Rockslide on E18 near Larvik. The southbound lanes will be closed for some time, but the northbound lanes are expected to open to traffic shortly.


----------



## Uppsala

^^
When do they think they can open the motorway again?


----------



## suburbicide

^^Too early to tell. The remaining wall is unstable and more of it will have to come down, probably by blasting.


----------



## Suburbanist

Was the wall being monitored?


----------



## Uppsala

^^
Can they open the motorway half profile. but traffic in both directions while they work?


----------



## IceCheese

Suburbanist said:


> Was the wall being monitored?


Nope, this section of E18 is just 2 years old.


----------



## devo

Uppsala said:


> ^^
> Can they open the motorway half profile. but traffic in both directions while they work?


They were considering it but are apparently progressing well in removing the loose rock. According to this bulletin collection they will blast away loose rock on Monday – and no words on temporary half profile.

My guess is that setting up a temporary half profile might limit access to the site and complicate the whole job, in addition this is probably something that has to be approved (work plans, sign plans, etc.). Now they can throw all resources at this and get it done while the traffic goes through Larvik.


----------



## IceCheese

The northbound lanes of E18 is planned to open later this week, according to the Road Authority. It will be opened for traffic both ways, ie. only one lane for each direction of traffic. The southbound section has suffered significant damage and won't be opened until after new years according to the same source.

Full article with video from blasting of the remaining rock can be seen here: https://www.aftenposten.no/norge/i/...-810-tonn-tung-steinblokk-ved-e18?jwsource=cl


----------



## ChrisZwolle

There has been a traffic switch on E6 near Moelv yesterday evening. Traffic is now using the new north tube of the Skarpsno Tunnel, which is here.

Evidently there is some 30 kilometers of fresh asphalt in use between Kåterud and Moelv, though I wouldn't characterize it as a semi-motorway opening, more like a temporary traffic configuration based on this photo.










Nye Veier: https://www.nyeveier.no/nyheter/nyheter/apner-e6-gjennom-skarpsnotunnelen/


----------



## ChrisZwolle

*E134 Mælefjell Tunnel*

The 9.4 kilometer long Mælefjell Tunnel of E134 has opened to traffic today. 

The tunnel was built between 2013 and 2019. Breakthrough was achieved on 3 May 2017. 

Location of the tunnel: https://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=59.5591&mlon=8.6864#map=12/59.5591/8.6864


----------



## ChrisZwolle

*Rv. 13 Ryfylke Tunnel*

The 14.4 kilometer long Ryfylke Tunnel has opened to traffic today. It is both the world's longest and deepest undersea tunnel. It is also the longest twin-tube tunnel in Europe. The tunnel goes 292 meters below sea level. 

It is the first of three tunnels that comprise the 'Ryfast' project near Stavanger, the 5.6 km long Hundvåg Tunnel is another undersea tunnel to Stavanger and the 3.9 km long Eiganes Tunnel of E39 connects to it through an underground interchange. The whole project consists of over 52 kilometers of tunnel tube and is scheduled to open in spring 2020.

Construction took a good 6 years.


----------



## verreme

^^ Could this be the world's last motorway opening of the year (not counting China)?


----------



## Gsus

verreme said:


> ^^ Could this be the world's last motorway opening of the year (not counting China)?


This tunnel will not be signed as a motorway. Unsure if even a expressway. The E39-section of the project will have motorway-status, as an expansion of the existing motorway-section south of Stavanger. The Hundvågtunnel will be signed as an expressway. Between the Hungvåg- and Ryfylketunnel, there will be a roundabout. The Ryfylketunnel is built with a narrower tunnel-crossection than Eiganes- and Hundvågtunnelen.


----------



## IceCheese

E18 Vestfold closed after yet another rock slide:


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1216084754187137025


----------



## ChrisZwolle

*E136 Vågstrand Tunnel*

The 3.7 kilometer long Vågstrand Tunnel of E136 between Åndalsnes and Vestnes will become toll-free before 31 January, the government reports.

Location: https://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=62.5709&mlon=7.3739#map=13/62.5709/7.3739

The tunnel opened to traffic on 18 December 2014 as part of an avalanche mitigation project. Tolls commenced in October 2015 at the same time as the Tresfjord Bridge opened. The toll is currently 33 NOK. 

So tolls will have been in force for less than 4.5 years.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

Another newsarticle discussing the strangeness of signposting Trondheim-Oslo via E6 (see some shorter alternatives to the left below, and the signposted to the right), and Bergen-Oslo via E16. Maybe more interesting, a recent and quite nice 7 minute winter Tesla timelapse video Trondheim-Oslo is provided, for those of you that do not suffer from epilepsy ;-) There is also a summer timelapse Oslo-Bergen.
https://www.nettavisen.no/nyheter/a...n-er-lenger-og-tar-lengre-tid/3423913215.html








 Nye veier has announced that the long tunnel on the new E6 motorway Stjørdal-Åsen north of Trondheim will be split and the road will be in the open crossing a small valley (see below). The longest section will be 6 km, still making it the longest of Trøndelag county, but barely reaching top 30 in Norway. https://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_over_veitunneler_i_Norge
















Map with old tunnel


----------



## ChrisZwolle

*Riksvei 3 Elverum*

The riksvei 3/25 upgrade near Elverum will be completed 3 months ahead of its already ambitious schedule. The opening is now set for 30 July 2020. 

This is a PPP project, the 27 kilometer road upgrade will be completed after just 26 months of construction. It includes 15 kilometers of new four lane motorway.


----------



## MichiH

MichiH said:


> *Rv13:* Hundvag – Solbakk 15km (2013 to 30th December 2019) project / OSM / _prop_ / GM / SP
> *E39:* Tasta – Schancheholen 4.5km (April 2014 to February 2020) project / OSM / _prop_ / GM / SP
> *Rv13:* Madlaveien (E39) – Hundvag 5.7km (May 2014 to February 2020) project / OSM / _prop_ / GM / SP


The opening of the Hundvågtunnelen and the Eiganestunnelen is delayed. Authorities need to spend more time for the final testing and emergency drills. The tunnels will likely be opened in late March. Source.


----------



## gipal2018

ChrisZwolle said:


> A possible record-breaking suspension bridge across Sulafjorden. It would dwarf the current longest suspension bridges.


Che dire? 133 metri più corto del Messina Bridge, ma almeno questo si farà. Per battere il record dell'Akashi Bridge non resta che trasferirsi in Norvegia


----------



## g.spinoza

gipal2018 said:


> Che dire? 133 metri più corto del Messina Bridge, ma almeno questo si farà. Per battere il record dell'Akashi Bridge non resta che trasferirsi in Norvegia


This is an English-speaking thread...


----------



## gipal2018

g.spinoza said:


> This is an English-speaking thread...


What to say? 100 meters shorter than the Messina Bridge, but at least this will be done. To break the Akashi Bridge record, all that remains is to move to Norway.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

*E18 Porsgrunn*

There are 5 qualified bidders for the E18 upgrade at Porsgrunn (Langangen - Rugtvedt);

* Eiffage
* Acciona + Salini Impregilo
* Obrascón Huerte Lain + SK Engineering and Construction
* FCC Construcción
* AF Gruppen 

So only one group is Norwegian (AF gruppen) and one contains a South Korean company (SK Engineering).

The cost estimate is 5.2 billion NOK (around € 500 million) excluding VAT, for the 17 kilometer motorway project. It is a complex project with several large bridges and a number of tunnels.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

*Rv. 555 Sotra Link*

There are four companies that have expressed interest in a 10 billion NOK PPP contract to build the new Sotra Bridge of Riksvei 555 west of Bergen. 

* Vinci Concessions
* FCC Concessions
* China Communications Construction Company
* Itinera

It is the largest road contract in Norway. 10 billion NOK = € 1 billion. The number of bidders is as expected, though no Norwegian company has bid for this project.

The awarding of the contract is expected in fall 2021. These large PPP projects usually require 2-3 years of tendering and contracting.


----------



## MichiH

MichiH said:


> *E39:* Tasta – Schancheholen 4.5km (April 2014 to Late March 2020) project / OSM / _prop_ / GM / SP
> *Rv13:* Madlaveien (E39) – Hundvag 5.7km (May 2014 to Late March 2020) project / OSM / _prop_ / GM / SP


https://www.at.no/artikler/utsetter-ryfast-apning/487709



> Eiganes- and Hundvågtunnel: The plan was for Transport Minister Knut Arild Hareide to open Ryfast on March 30 at noon, but now the *opening must be postponed indefinitely*.
> The reason is that the Road Traffic Center (VTS) in Bergen has reduced staffing, as more employees are quarantined due to the coronavirus.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

*ÅDT*

Traffic volumes in Norway:










Detail:


----------



## MichiH

^^ Today, last month, last year?


----------



## Gsus

MichiH said:


> ^^ Today, last month, last year?


NVDB is quite dynamic, and most numbers there now are from last year. All numbers are not based on counting tho, but also on expected traffic-distribution when t.ex reaching an intersection.


----------



## Ingenioren

I guess there is no use doing counting these days, when i worked with counting we were only allowed to use thursday, wednesday and tuesday for manuall counts, since they were considered normal days for traffic.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Proposed projects to be developed by Nye Veier:










https://www.nyeveier.no/nyheter/nyheter/foreslar-nye-prosjekter-til-nye-veier/


----------



## sadebre

I'm assuming this means there aren't any plans to connect up the E134 upgrade with Bergen via a ferry-free link across the Hardanger Fjord?


----------



## Ingenioren

Guess not, there will hopefully be a ferry-free alternative via E39. Altough a detour if the road standard is superior might be preferred after all, a shortcut from Ølen to Bømlafjordtunnelen could perhaps be a project eventually.


----------



## verreme

Stuu said:


> I'm amazed there is a youth culture where a Volvo 740 is considered cool. What have they been smoking!


C'mon, these brick-shaped, last-forever barges are the epithome of cool. And aesthetics.

I'm not particularly fond of the "car culture" consisting in gas station meetups because car people are generally boring and measure their dick size in car mods but I do love a 740 as I love a tailored suit.

About the Volkswagen Golf: these people are the absolute worst


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

^^ I think last forever / robust design are keywords for Volvo here. In addition, the model had a fairly long life and available in relative high numbers in Scandinavia, which is even more true for 140/240, which means that parts are available.



Pascal22A said:


> Are there new photos of the E6 sections in construction???


There are quite a few E6 sections under construction (E6 is long), so you might have to be more specific. Here is a video from the recently opened Kolomoen-Kåterud:


----------



## Sponsor

What does the double dashed line in 5:50 means?


----------



## ChrisZwolle

It looks like a recommendation to stay in the left lane if traffic is merging. In the Netherlands we sometimes use a solid line for that. 

Is this new? I've driven almost all motorways in Norway and I don't recall this being a thing. Or I never noticed it?


----------



## IceCheese

^^Those are standard along all motorway entrance ramps. Since traffic in the inner lane is merging with the entrance traffic, cars from outer lanes should avoid changing lanes hence the long dashes.

If the motorway has more than two lanes, only the second lane gets the longer dashes.


----------



## MacOlej

ChrisZwolle said:


> I never understood why young people think a Volkswagen Golf is a status symbol. It's the most average, middle-of-the-road, parked-on-every-streetcorner car there is...


Many people here in Poland have a sentiment towards VAG cars, especially VW and Audi. For many these cars really are a status symbol, even despite the fact that Audi A4 and VW Golf are the most commonly imported used car models.

My own theory is that we fell in love with German cars during the Cold War because of the quality contrast. If you compare what Germans and Poles were producing and driving in the 70's and 80's, it's easy to understand this.


----------



## Corvinus

^^ *West* German cars, bien entendu  It was alike in other Soviet Bloc countries, too. West German built vehicles were the symbol of quality, performance and comfort, though only a minority could own them. 

... but back on topic, 110 km/h is the highest existing speed limit in Norway, right? Are there any halfway serious plans in the drawer to push for higher limits?
Do limits above the "default" extra-urban 80 km/h have to be signposted everywhere, or do certain road types imply a higher default speed limit?
Do intersections or entry ramps cancel a previously posted limit?


----------



## Kjello0

There are plans of increasing it to 120 km/h. Or, there were at least such plans until the Progress Party left the government a couple of months ago. Not quite sure where it stands at the moment.

Speed limits above 80 km/h have to be signposted after every intersection.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

The remaining two tunnels of the Ryfast project in Stavanger will open on 22 April. These are the Eiganes and Hundvåg Tunnels. 

Ryfast Facebook:
_Hundvåg- og Eiganestunnelen åpner onsdag 22. april kl. 14.15. Det gjør samferdselsminister Knut Arild Hareide fra kontorstolen i Oslo. Åpningen vil skje via video, og ordførere, fylkesordfører og Statens vegvesen deltar sammen med statsråden. _


----------



## suburbicide

Work to replace the concrete paving on E6 north of Gardermoen with asphalt, starts Monday. This is the only Norwegian motorway with concrete, to my knowledge. The concrete road, which now make up the northbound lanes, was originally built in 1989. The southbound lanes were built much later, with asphalt.


----------



## devo

ChrisZwolle said:


> It looks like a recommendation to stay in the left lane if traffic is merging. In the Netherlands we sometimes use a solid line for that.
> 
> Is this new? I've driven almost all motorways in Norway and I don't recall this being a thing. Or I never noticed it?


The long white line indicates danger "varsellinje". It means that you should not cross it if it is close to you, i.e. when you're in the left lane. It always appears in pair with the shorter line and I've never seen the reverse. This line usage is identical with the yellow lines on two lane roads, i.e. the short line indicates that passing is "not discouraged". 
It is different from a solid line, which is forbidden to cross. It also means that you can stay in the left lane, otherwise you would have to merge right. Solid white lines do appear on various roads and in junctions but I've never seen the solid in combination with the short dashed line, which is common in Germany and the Netherlands afaik. But it would probably have the same use, we do have it with the center line, i.e. solid yellow and dashed from the direction you're allowed to pass.


----------



## Ingenioren

Took some photos from E134 this easter:

Haukeli
2020-04-18_08-53-36 by André Wauthier, on Flickr

Røldal
2020-04-18_08-53-51 by André Wauthier, on Flickr


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Very nice. I've read there is a (near) record amount of road closures this winter in Southern Norway.


----------



## MacOlej

suburbicide said:


> Work to replace the concrete paving on E6 north of Gardermoen with asphalt, starts Monday. This is the only Norwegian motorway with concrete, to my knowledge.


Is concrete considered worse than asphalt in Norway?


----------



## MattiG

MacOlej said:


> Is concrete considered worse than asphalt in Norway?


According to the experiences in Finland, I would vote yes. In the arctic regions where the ground freezes and melts every year, concrete as a non-elastic material tend to fail by cracking,


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

There has been various trials over the last decades trying new methods, but they have tended to be short-lived (like E6 Trondheim) or leading to inferior surface quality (like E6 north of Gardermoen)
Link to image concrete surface construction on the E6 bypass of Trondheim in 1991: Omkjøringsveien, betongdekke legges under rundkjøring i Nardo krysset


----------



## MattiG

54°26′S 3°24′E said:


> There has been various trials over the last decades trying new methods, but they have tended to be short-lived (like E6 Trondheim) or leading to inferior surface quality (like E6 north of Gardermoen)
> Link to image concrete surface construction on the E6 bypass of Trondheim in 1991: Omkjøringsveien, betongdekke legges under rundkjøring i Nardo krysset


The same in Finland. The last trial was on 3/E12 north of Helsinki. The surface was made in 1992. The first repairs were done in 1999, a honing in 2000, and finally it was removed in 2006. The road agency told that no new projects will be started. The expected lifetime was 40 years.

The moving ground makes the surface to crack, and the studded winter tires make grooves on the upper surface. As a material, concrete is like a tooth: Very strong at the surface, but softer inside.


----------



## Ingenioren

ChrisZwolle said:


> Very nice. I've read there is a (near) record amount of road closures this winter in Southern Norway.


There has been more snow than usual in the highlands, however in the lowlands there has barely been any.


----------



## suburbicide

MacOlej said:


> Is concrete considered worse than asphalt in Norway?


I think that's safe to assume that asphalt is considered more suitable given that it's being replaced by asphalt. 

It has lasted 31 years though. I wonder how many times it would have been repaved in that time if it was asphalt? Concrete is said to be more environmentally friendly because it lasts longer, requires less energy to make than asphalt, and because fuel consumption for cars driving on concrete is lower due to lower rolling resistance.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

30+ year old concrete is rarely still a smooth ride. So while it lasted that long, it didn't last that long with the specifications it was originally built with. But as it doesn't develop potholes, it may remain in a substandard state for a very long time, before it is finally replaced.

Asphalt does require more maintenance, but in those cases you only need to mill and resurface the top layer. With concrete, the whole road has to be taken out. This makes a huge difference in traffic impact, so asphalt is usually preferred if the availability of capacity is a critical factor. For example France and Italy have virtually no concrete on their toll roads, because they demand a high availability of uninterrupted traffic flow. The same goes for the Netherlands. Germany seems to be a mixed bag in this.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

Ingenioren said:


> There has been more snow than usual in the highlands, however in the lowlands there has barely been any.


While that is true in the Oslo-area, Trøndelag has in fact received quite a lot of snow this winter despite the mild temperatures, with skiiing in Trondheim possible from November, and the season is not yet over....





Kart skisporet.no


Skisporet.no



skisporet.no






suburbicide said:


> I think that's safe to assume that asphalt is considered more suitable given that it's being replaced by asphalt.
> 
> It has lasted 31 years though. I wonder how many times it would have been repaved in that time if it was asphalt? Concrete is said to be more environmentally friendly because it lasts longer, requires less energy to make than asphalt, and because fuel consumption for cars driving on concrete is lower due to lower rolling resistance.


Production of concrete actually leads to more CO2 emissions than asphalt. From my memory, cement production accounts for approximately 10 % of the anthropogenic CO2 of the world. And the problem is that concrete does not seem to last much longer here in the Nordics with satisfactory surface quality, and it is difficult / expensive to repair. Asphalt is also much easier to recycle.


----------



## IceCheese

I've seen figures showing that the co2 emissions from concrete production has been significantly reduced, and there's still gains to be made the next 10-20 years (this discussion was about construction, not pavement)

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1232050817663995904Compared to asphalt which will continue to rely on petroleum it's going to be interesting to see what the compared climate impact will look like in a few years.


In the city (Oslo) concrete is being used more and more for bus stops and some streets with very high bus frequency, see for instance Jernbanetorget from 2009 (doing pretty well) and Schweigaards gate which I guess is from the 80ies or early 90ies (and crumbling)

Jernbanetorget:








Google Maps


Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.




www.google.com





Schweigaards gate:








Google Maps


Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.




www.google.com


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Concrete is more resistent to friction, so it may be a good solution for bus stops, roundabouts or intersections. 

The Netherlands has an attitude to switch asphalt bike paths for concrete, 'so you don't have to look at it again for half a century'. I guess we'll have to wait and see, I know plenty of concrete bike paths built in the 1980s and 1990s that are very uncomfortable due to cracks and slight elevation differences between the slabs. Another problem in the summer is concrete blowout due to expansion of hot concrete.


----------



## Tronni

The municipality of Bjørnafjorden has together with the municipalities of Kvam, Samnanger, Kvinnherad and Ullensvang decided that they do not want the Hordfast bridge, and that they want Hordfast to go in an inner line instead. 









Bjørnafjorden kommune seier nei til Hordfast-brua


Bjørnafjorden kommune vil ikkje ha Hordfast-brua, men heller utgreiing av ferjefri E39 med indre trasé. Det blei vedteke i går, og skapar reaksjonar.




www.nrk.no


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

IceCheese said:


> I've seen figures showing that the co2 emissions from concrete production has been significantly reduced, and there's still gains to be made the next 10-20 years (this discussion was about construction, not pavement)
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1232050817663995904Compared to asphalt which will continue to rely on petroleum it's going to be interesting to see what the compared climate impact will look like in a few years.
> 
> 
> In the city (Oslo) concrete is being used more and more for bus stops and some streets with very high bus frequency, see for instance Jernbanetorget from 2009 (doing pretty well) and Schweigaards gate which I guess is from the 80ies or early 90ies (and crumbling)
> 
> Jernbanetorget:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Google Maps
> 
> 
> Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.google.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Schweigaards gate:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Google Maps
> 
> 
> Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.google.com


Yes, I have seen plenty of concrete in the urban bus projects in Trondheim as well. Cost does not appear to be a major concern... In my experience, concrete generally has lower friction due to smoother surface than a asphalt, especially the first few years, which of course not always is ideal.

This is getting technical, but with regard to cement production, a main source of CO2 is actually embedded in the calcinating process itself, and hence independent of the source of the energy. Also, unless you have excess supply of renewable electric energy for heating, it is always a bad idea, environmentally speaking, to use it for heat. If the marginal electricity is produced using thermal power plants (which currently is the case in almost all countries of the world), you will end up burning of the order of twice the amount of fuel compared to if you use the fuel directly in the process. And using asphalt for roads is a much better idea than combusting more or less the same oil fractions by ship engines. Asphalt can actually be considered as some sort of low-tech long term carbon storage.

Having said that, there are technological inititatives that includes e.g. Heidelberg Cement and SINTEF to capture CO2 also from industrial sources like the calcinating process, which possibly would eleminate or at least reduces these CO2 emissions. Also, technological progress with regards to the properties of concrete for use as road surface, and not at least a lot to gain with being even more attentive with regards to how these roads are constructed that could change the picture in favour of concrete. Finally, some of the asphalt particles torn off the roads eventually ends up in the sea or in bodies of fresh water, which of course is undesirable.


----------



## MattiG

54°26′S 3°24′E said:


> Yes, I have seen plenty of concrete in the urban bus projects in Trondheim as well. Cost does not appear to be a major concern... In my experience, concrete generally has lower friction due to smoother surface than a asphalt, especially the first few years, which of course not always is ideal.


I believe that the most common reason to pave bus stops and busy bus lanes by concrete is not about friction. Asphalt tends to get deformed quite easily under heavy buses, especially on warm days. The buses standing at a stop while the engine is running make a pretty strong vibration, and that may lead to a severe deformation within a few years only.


----------



## IceCheese

^^I believe you're right. The types of asphalt used today is not hard enough for bus stops, giving some rather nasty tire tracks as seen here








Google Maps


Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.




www.google.com


----------



## Shenkey

In Germany they are also using concrete in a lot of bus stops. I know some countries like Slovenia have also stated adopting concrete for bus stops.

But there is another benefit for asphalt, just not in bus stops. It get recycled a LOT.


----------



## MattiG

Shenkey said:


> But there is another benefit for asphalt, just not in bus stops. It get recycled a LOT.


To some extent, yes. However, the aging oil component loses its rheometric performance (viscosity and penetration), and there is a limit on how many recycling rounds are possible. In Finland, the standard procedure for the REMIX method is to use 70-80% recycled mass, but a surface can be remixed twice only. Thus, every third resurfacing must use new materials.

There is some recent research done at Aalto University Finland. The results show that the "two rounds only" approach might be too straightforward. It is possible to extend the age of the oil component by a careful rejuvenation process, but reaching a substantial improvement may be challenging. Making proper asphalt concrete is surprisingly complex process in which everything affects everything.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

The Eiganes and Hundvåg Tunnels of the Ryfast megaproject in Stavanger have opened to traffic today. This completes the huge tunneling project that included 50 kilometers of tunnel tube.




__ https://www.facebook.com/ryfast/posts/2523706917734323



The E39 / Rv. 13 underground interchange:


----------



## [atomic]




----------



## Tronni

The Minister for Transport wants full development of E18 west of Oslo. If not, he says there will be no developments in Oslo at all.









Hareide med E18-ultimatum: Alt eller ingenting


Samferdselsministeren vil ha full utbygging av E18 vest for Oslo. Ellers vil ikke Knut Arild Hareide bygge vei i det hele tatt.




www.nrk.no


----------



## ChrisZwolle

It was originally agreed upon as part of the Oslopakke 3, right?


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Ryfast remains non-tolled for the near future. There hasn't been sufficient testing of the systems due to the coronavirus, so you can drive it for free.






Bompengeinnkreving Ryfast utsatt - AutoPASS







www.autopass.no


----------



## Tronni

ChrisZwolle said:


> It was originally agreed upon as part of the Oslopakke 3, right?


A slightly scaled down version or something of the like, AFAIK. 

According to this article, Statens Vegvesen was asked to come up with alternative solutions, but I'm not sure they have.









Her er alle detaljene i Oslopakke 3-avtalen


Tre av fire kroner fra bomstasjoner langs vei skal gå til kollektivutbygging i Oslo og Akershus. Oslopakke 3 forlenges til år 2036.




www.aftenposten.no


----------



## belerophon

54°26′S 3°24′E said:


> While that is true in the Oslo-area, Trøndelag has in fact received *quite a lot of snow this winter despite the mild temperatures*, with skiiing in Trondheim possible from November, and the season is not yet over....


I don't know if that is a trivial fact, but you are aware, that there is more snow close to zero degrees Celsius instead of temperatures deep below? 

The implications of this fact in case of climate change are not completely understood even by scientists. It is clear, that glaciers in the Alpes melt, because of less snow in winter and more melting in summer. But globally it is hard to model in which regions more snow would occur due temperatures higher and closer to zero. 

For sure temperatures around zeor and changing will tear down roads more than deeper freezing. As each cycle will blow the asphalt or concrete up a little more, making space for more water and freezing again. 

For the amount of snow, it is essential, how much water the air can take. The warmer, the more water can be carried.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

^^
[ot]
Probably not a trivial fact you are pointing out there in your first paragraph. That you get more snow-fall arount 0C is certainly an observable fact in coastal cities like Trondheim, but it is more complicated, in my experience, as you are getting further from the coast, where there is often rather heavy snow falls also at lower temperatures. Talking like an amateur here, I believe the reason is that the amount of precipitation is given by the moisture and cooling rate in athmospheric layers above ground, not at the ground. In Norway in general (as in most countries I guess), both the relative and absolute moisture and temperature of air are correlated with the wind direction. Along the whole western coast, (south-)westerly winds mean that saturated humid air which is relatively mild during winter and cool during summer comes from the sea, whereas easterly winds mean that the air is drier and colder weather (winter) or warm weather (summer). Hence, there is kind of a chicken and egg situation with regard precipitation and temperature during winter: There is more precipitation during milder wheather, but it is mostly because the reason you have mild weather is that moist air is brought in from the sea.

However, the amount of snow cover is not just about precipitation, but also depends on whether it remain on the ground melts or not. As you see in the official statistics of Trondheim, this winter the temperature in the low-lands of Trøndelag was far above average and hardly below 0 from the beginning of the year until late February: Forecast for Trondheim. This means that most of the precipitiation has been sleet and rain in the city, and normally good conditions for the snow to melt. What has saved the season for the skiers have been good snow-falls in November-December and March-April (?), and that Trondheim is quite hilly, with the best skiing terrain (and the residential areas with most skiing fanatics) is at a somewhat higher altitude (200-550 m).
[/ot]


----------



## Ingenioren

Again, took some roadpictures this week.

Rv15 at Strynefjell:
2020-04-28_02-17-08 by André Wauthier, on Flickr

The Island of Runde:
2020-04-28_02-16-26 by André Wauthier, on Flickr

E39 Ørskogfjellet:
2020-04-28_02-15-52 by André Wauthier, on Flickr

Fv51 Valdresflye:
2020-04-28_02-15-06 by André Wauthier, on Flickr

Fv287 Eggedal:
2020-04-28_02-14-24 by André Wauthier, on Flickr


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Norway is not a bad place to be quarantined in, if you can still travel domestically. 

The Netherlands is rather boring compared to this. I really hope that I can still travel to the Alps or Norway this summer.


----------



## Rob73

ChrisZwolle said:


> Norway is not a bad place to be quarantined in, if you can still travel domestically.
> 
> The Netherlands is rather boring compared to this. I really hope that I can still travel to the Alps or Norway this summer.


You can but there aren't a lot of hotels open in most cities, for example there are no hotels open in central Stavanger. I discovered this yesterday.


----------



## Ingenioren

54°26′S 3°24′E said:


> Any plans for Rv 110, the main connection to Fredrikstad if not coming from Sweden/Sarpsborg/Halden?


I guess not, i had a slight hope the new railway station in Råde would include a bypass of sorts, but it's not even being regulated at this point.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Vøringsfossen. They built a new bridge over the largest waterfall. It's spectacular, but it's starting to look more and more like a theme park...


----------



## Rob73

ChrisZwolle said:


> That new bridge across Vøringsfossen is definitely on my to-do-list on my next trip to Norway. I've been there twice already, it's conveniently located on riksvei 7 on the west side of Hardangervidda.


I was there last week, it wasn't open which was a disappointment. That said the Hardanger Bridge is amazing. The scenic road from there to Voss isn't it's a travesty that it called a road.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

A guy has now covered the whole new section of Rv 3 / 25 Løten / Elverum on YouTube:
South to north:





North to south:





North to south again, slightly shorter and without a detour towards Elverum city center:






The same guy also shared multiple drone videos.

This forested area in the interior of Norway is not the most spectacular of the country, but it probably as well suited as it gets here for highway construction.

I notice that the guy most of the time drive significantly below the speed limit, at least in the first two videos. Not to succumb to stereotypes, but in my experience, that is fairly common for local traffic in the area, whereas long distance cars (typically with plates from Trøndelag/Trondheim or Oslo area) often drive way too fast. One of the greater risks in the area, at least for less modern roads than this one, is actually moose, which can be hard to spot when they tend to move around at dusk or dawn.


----------



## Gsus

54°26′S 3°24′E said:


> I notice that the guy most of the time drive significantly below the speed limit, at least in the first two videos.


If his speedometer was correct, he was down to 25 km/h before entering the exit-lane, and was passed by several vehicles. Even tho I enjoyed the films, I prefere that people drive safe on the motorway. You`ll catch up to someone very fast doing 110, if the guy in front is almost at a standstill.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

Indeed you are right, I did not notice that. Let's hope the reading was not completely timed with the video. I tried to count the time between light poles, but my research was not conclusive ;-)


----------



## Kjello0

Gsus said:


> If his speedometer was correct, he was down to 25 km/h before entering the exit-lane, and was passed by several vehicles.


The speedometer clearly isn't timed well with the video. If you look at 0:37 in the first clip, you can see him speed up to 90 km/h while in a roundabout. So it's fair to say that the speedometer is a couple of seconds infront of the actuall driving.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

*E6 Trondheim - Stjørdal*

The expansion of E6 to a four lane motorway with a 110 km/h speed limit has commenced between Ranheim and Værnes, which is basically Trondheim to Stjørdal. It is a 23 kilometer project by Nye Veier. Prime minister Solberg attended the groundbreaking ceremony today. Construction is scheduled to be completed by 2025.









Nå starter byggingen av E6 Ranheim – Værnes


– Nå starter vi den videre utbyggingen av E6 nordover fra Trondheim. Bygging av strekningen mellom Ranheim og Værnes er et stort veiprosjekt som store deler av Trøndelag får nytte av når det står klart. Veien er et viktig bindeledd mellom Trondheim by ...




www.regjeringen.no


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

The first symbolic turn of the shovel by the prime minister into a wheelbarrow held by the mayor of Stjørdal:


https://adressavodps-vh.akamaihd.net/2020/09/ea464a6b438a8b1cf72d358e7fd483d9/480_270_500.mp4


Let's hope the rest of the work is done in a slightly more efficient and compentent manner ;-)

The plans within the city limits of Trondheim is btw still not approved. It will be an item of the city council meeting of Thursday. Most likely it will be approved, however, and if not, Nye Veier says it can live with the old plan. The consequence is that this 2 km section will be 90 km/h. However, it seems like the revision of the plan to 110 km/h will be approved also in Trondheim, as this is the position of three major parties.


----------



## riiga

Yesterday the first 3.8 km of a controversial bike road opened. It has cost more than 10k € per meter which is more expensive than some newly build roads. It features an expressway design complete with on- and offramps(!). Imho it's really cool to see Norway building bike infrastructure that can rival that of Denmark and the Netherlands, but I doubt it is money well spent when a regular bike path could've sufficed.









Åpner snart sykkelvei til 1,4 milliarder: – Bortkastede penger


STAVANGER (NRK): Neste uke åpner deler av det som er Norges flotteste og dyreste sykkelvei. Ikke alle skjønner hvorfor syklistene skal få en vei som koster 100.000 kroner per meter.




www.nrk.no





Here's a video of the road:








Slik blir den nye sykkelveien langs E39 – NRK


Første del av sykkelstamveien åpnes onsdag.




www.nrk.no


----------



## keber

So 130 million euro for 13 km of cycle path (road) according to article. This is a cost of many motorway sections of the same length in other countries in similar or even more demanding terrain.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

It would be hard to justify such an investment. Even in the Netherlands they don't spend anywhere near that kind of money on a bike path. Anything more than a few million euros is extravagant, the most expensive objects are usually bike bridges (ranging from a few million to may 10 or 15 million) or bicycle parking garages at train stations. Those are rare and used by thousands of cyclists per day, which I doubt will be achieved in Norway.

The terrain and soil in Norway makes it expensive to build bike paths or even foothpaths compared to Denmark or the Netherlands. Stavanger has relatively easy terrain though. A major deterrent for cycling is rain and wind and Stavanger is among the rainiest areas in Europe.


----------



## threo2k

Im born in norway and lived here my entire life. I have over the years criticized this country for not spending enough money on highways, and I have been thrown ugly words at and been used arguments such as "we dont need that/its difficult terrain" bla bla bla.

Then they invest that money in this..Im ashamed to be an Norwegian citizen


----------



## Rob73

threo2k said:


> Im born in norway and lived here my entire life. I have over the years criticized this country for not spending enough money on highways, and I have been thrown ugly words at and been used arguments such as "we dont need that/its difficult terrain" bla bla bla.
> 
> Then they invest that money in this..Im ashamed to be an Norwegian citizen


I'm not born in Norway but I have lived here for 14 years, in the last 5-6 years years the pace of highway building has been brake neck, it's really impressive to see the scope and sheer amount of projects being undertaken, I just hope that if the current govt doesn't survive the next election the next lot will continue with the projects planned. But you are right only the most rabid lefty green could justify that kind of money being thrown at a cycle path.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

keber said:


> So 130 million euro for 13 km of cycle path (road) according to article. This is a cost of many motorway sections of the same length in other countries in similar or even more demanding terrain.


The Norwegian media has found this out as well.

NRK:


----------



## Grotlaufen

riiga said:


> Yesterday the first 3.8 km of a controversial bike road opened. It has cost more than 10k € per meter which is more expensive than some newly build roads. It features an expressway design complete with on- and offramps(!). Imho it's really cool to see Norway building bike infrastructure that can rival that of Denmark and the Netherlands, but I doubt it is money well spent when a regular bike path could've sufficed.


At times, such roads have been justified with capital investments in water supply as the usual reason, sometimes including an upgrade to the electrical grid. You need to build a new water pipe and/or a sewage pipe due to environmental concerns etc or for exploitative reasons, add a bicycle route as a frosting on the cake to a marginal cost. The article doesn't say anything about it though, but I know of other cases where they else couldn't have motivated a bicycle route.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

Similar projects are promised in the 9 largest urban areas of Norway in the current national transport plan. The Trondheim project will in fact be even more expensive, estimated to more than 110 kNOK per km in 2017, or 2.2 to 2.4 billion NOK total, but includes a major bridge.
Video of plans for the southern sections:








Sykkelekspressveg E6 Tiller til Sluppen - adressa.no


Slik kan ny sykkelvei fra Tiller mot Sluppen bli utformet




www.adressa.no





My view is a bit mixed on this. Normally, combined cycle / pedestrian paths have been built in Norway, often with tight bends and blind corners. This is a quite unsafe solution for both pedestrians and bike riders, although bikes are legally only allowed to pass pedestrians at walking speed. Also, every time a road has to be crossed, there is either a underpass, overpass, or at grade crossing (where the bikes normally have to yield) all solutions which are non-ideal for bikers. Hence, I often think it safer, and certainly faster, to use the ordinary road. However, I certainly think it is possible to find cheaper solutions than those proposed. Unfortunately, there is not much incentives to save costs it seems on urban pt and bike/pedestrian projects in Norwegian cities.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

The toll rings around cities are an easy cash cow to fund such otherwise unviable projects. 

The Netherlands has also been spending extravagantly on bicycle infrastructure since the 1990s, but this has actually done very little to move the modal split. The amount of annually cycled kilometers fluctuates within a small bandwidth without a clear trend, in other words, these investments in wider bike paths, bridges, new routes, etc. are not really translating to a substantial change. The Dutch cycling infrastructure is already so good that any further shift proves difficult to achieve. Maximum potential is already reached but this doesn't satisfy policy-makers. 

Unlike other environmental projects (like energy) there is virtually no opposition to spending on cycling infrastructure, which more or less opened the door to unprofitable prestigious projects, which are "nice to have" but are often a solution in need of a problem. I don't think most these projects really have any evaluation or serious cost/benefit analysis.


----------



## Hansadyret

Ny E16 over Filefjell: Nå åpner den tryggeste vinterveien mellom øst- og vestlandet
Finally the last bit of the new E16 over filefjell will open 23 sep. That road is really nice now. It's the safest road between Oslo and Bergen in the winter.
Work will continue on E16 in Valdres. 2 new projects is about to start up.


----------



## Hansadyret

Kjello0 said:


> I've only added stretches that with close to a 100 % certainty will be motorways, and will start construction the next 15 years.
> 
> I was close to adding Hordfast, but decided to have it on the proposed list as for now. Same goes for the remaining stretch from Stord to the Rogfast tunnel.
> They haven't set a final road standard yet. And just 10 months ago Nye Veier wanted to scrap the planned bridge, and go for the inner corridor. Though they less than two months later turned around and went for the bridge anyways. I guess construction will start pretty soon once plans have been approved. But at the moment, that seems a bit to uncertain.
> 
> For Møreaksen it's very uncertain what will happen at all. They're still fighting between Møreaksen and Romsdalsaksen. Nye Veier have actually proposed looking into the project all over again. Including looking at the possibility of better ferries with 2(3)-lane roads on either side. So I'm not that certain there will be a motorway at all between Molde and Ålesund.
> 
> A change in government next year will also most likely affect the standard on these stretches. That's also a key reason of why I haven't added them yet. Most of the parties in the opposition are heavily against these projects. For different reasons. So if they gain position next year, I'm pretty certain Hordfast is in a thin thread. And Møreaksen seems to be in a thin thread all ready.


I'm sure Rogfast will start before 5 years. Everything is pretty much ready to go.
Last i saw on Hordfast is that they plan to start construction in 2024. 
I really hope this happens. What a road this will be between Bergen and Stavanger. Worlds longest floating bridge (5km) and worlds longest and deepest tunnel. I think the planning have come to far now to stop it.


----------



## Hansadyret

ChrisZwolle said:


> The new E39 motorway from Bergen to Os looks pretty advanced. Almost the entire project is underground. According to the project website the motorway won't open until 2022 though.
> 
> Google Earth also has satellite images from March 2020.


This is is probably the most expensive pr. meter motorway project ever built in Norway, the cost is estimated to end at 7.5 B NOK. The new road to Sotra will be even more expensive at 10 B NOK. It's incredibly expensive to build roads in the Bergen area because of the mountains and fjords.


----------



## Hansadyret

MattiG said:


> There still is a long way to go. Several municipalities in the area have said no to proposed alignment. They want to implement a route which would be located more inland. Because the regional bodies have a strong power in the Norwegian decicion making value stack, I would not be very surprised if the planning restarted from scratch.



A more inland route was was discussed years ago and scrapped. This is a state plan so the local regional powers have less power.


----------



## Hansadyret

sadebre said:


> I'm assuming this means there aren't any plans to connect up the E134 upgrade with Bergen via a ferry-free link across the Hardanger Fjord?


Vestland county want money to build a new E16 and rail between Bergen and Voss, pushing a better link between Bergen and E134 is seen as a threat to this project. It's politics as usual between the different east-west connections.
Since both the Jondal and Folgefonna tunnels are now paid and tolls removed the natural step would be to build the bridge from Jondal but it seems such a project is far down the list for now.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

ChrisZwolle said:


> The toll rings around cities are an easy cash cow to fund such otherwise unviable projects.


Yes. The political majority in all larger Norwegian cities now would like to reduce urban car traffic, and tolls are part of their solutions. However, since spending these funds on roads for car would counterproductive towards that goal, they need to use money on something else.

Personally I commute by bike myself, and the share using bikes and PT have actually increased in Norwegian cities lately. However, I personally believe that trends ("doing the right thing for your health and the environment) and all the restrictions that have put in place for reducing car traffic is far more important than the new bike paths the last decade, at least in Trondheim.


----------



## Rob73

Hansadyret said:


> Vestland county want money to build a new E16 and rail between Bergen and Voss, pushing a better link between Bergen and E134 is seen as a threat to this project. It's politics as usual between the different east-west connections.
> Since both the Jondal and Folgefonna tunnels are now paid and tolls removed the natural step would be to build the bridge from Jondal but it seems such a project is far down the list for now.


I drove this road between Bergen and Voss this summer, it's not a nice road to drive on but the scenery almost makes up for it.


----------



## Rob73

54°26′S 3°24′E said:


> Yes. The political majority in all larger Norwegian cities now would like to reduce urban car traffic, and tolls are part of their solutions. However, since spending these funds on roads for car would counterproductive towards that goal, they need to use money on something else.
> 
> Personally I commute by bike myself, and the share using bikes and PT have actually increased in Norwegian cities lately. However, I personally believe that trends ("doing the right thing for your health and the environment) and all the restrictions that have put in place for reducing car traffic is far more important than the new bike paths the last decade, at least in Trondheim.


Eventually cycling will hit a glass ceiling, in Norway that's the weather and topography, there will only be a finite number of people who are prepared to battle these conditions on a bike year round.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

Last week was quite eventful for the development of the roads in my region Trøndelag
*Completion of "Salmon highway" upgrade*
It was announced that the last (8th) leg of the upgrade of FV 714 would open. This county road is one of the most important of Trøndelag, as it connects a major salmon producing area of Norway (and hence the world) to the rest of the country. Hence the nickname "Laksevegen" or Salmon Highway. The previous road had very bad geometry, leading trucks, especially the foreign ones, being stuck on a regular basis. This last leg is possibly the most spectacular one, with a tunnel of 735 m crossing Åstfjorden, and two tunnels of 2650 and 770 m. Although the length of the section is only 5.6 km, it shortens the length of the highway by 6 km. Total shortening of the whole Salmon Highway upgrade will be around 12.5 km.
Map: https://www.trondelagfylke.no/globalassets/dokumenter/veg/fv714-kart-juni2017.pdf








Åstfjordbrua (bridge across Åstfjorden) U/C
*Sluppen bru, ready to start construction?*
Possibly the worst bottleneck of the Trondheim roads, about whoch I have been whining for decades is the Sluppen bridge. Essentially, this is one of very few connections across the river Nidelven between the western and eastern suburbs of Trondheim, and this narrow bridge, built during WW2 on pylons from the 19th century, has been in need for replacement since at least the 60s. Even if it is the connection betwen two national roads (Rv 706 and E6), it is a very narrow bridge with a 90 degree turn in on end and a T-interesection with traffic lights in the other. Last week, the Trondheim city council approved the financing plan for its replacement. If also the county approves, construction can start this fall.

The new bridge will be four lanes, ending in a roundabout on the western side with the portal of the future Byåstunnelen in the opposite end. Rv 706 will be grade separated and go below the roundabout. Unfortunately, Rv 706 will itself still be greatly underdimensioned with an ordinart two-lane road serving 16 000 AADT at the opening day. Rv 706 also further north is underdimensioned due to previous mistakes, so there would be no easy fix here, and the situation would improve when and if the Byåstunnelen is built. During construction, both the bridge and possibly Rv 706 will be closed for almost a year, which undoubtedly will cause problems elsewhere in the city.

















*New E6 Ranheim-Stjørdal approved by Trondheim city council*
Last week the Trondheim city council with an overwhelming majority decided to approve the short Trondheim section of the new E6 Ranheim-Stjørdal discussed above. HAll the three municipalities along this section of E6 have now approved the motorway plan, and there is now only a theoretical probability that the project can be stopped by some legal stumble stone, I think.

I was actually impressed by the Labor Party in Trondheim, which was an essential part of the majority in this case. It has a long history of making stupid mistakes regarding the infrastructure developments in Trondheim, e.g. E6 south of Trondheim. It is however good that they try to make amends with regard to E6 Ranheim-Stjørdal. Except city toll rings, toll projects should have a limited life time in Norway. This has not exactly been the case for E6 Trondheim-Stjørdal, where tolls have been paid since 1988. The reason is that the project has been constructed in sections. With the new upgrade, there will be tolls at least until 2039....

Anyway, I salute the final approval and start of construction of E6 Ranheim - Stjørdal with a hit in Norway from the 90s, "E6":





When looking at this video from 2008, it is quite evident that a lot has happened with E6 south and north of Oslo lately, and I am quite happy that things finally also are moving in Trøndelag.

Of course, the lyrics is incomprehensible for non-Norwegians, but the song is about a trucker who rushes home from the southern end of E6 in Norway to his woman in the northern town of Bodø (1344 km, and about 18 hours using current E6) , "as someone could be in her arms now". It turns out that "someone" is his newborn baby. The chorus keeps repeating that E6 is the straightest way, which is quite ironic, as he could have saved about an hour, by selecting Rv 3 as allmost all truckers do....but I guess it would have been too complicated for this song ;-)

Of course, the lyrics is incomprehensible for non-Norwegians, except if you are Polish ;-)


----------



## Hansadyret

Rob73 said:


> I drove this road between Bergen and Voss this summer, it's not a nice road to drive on but the scenery almost makes up for it.


The plan is to build mostly long tunnels. Driving lots of long tunnels will probably make this the most boring road when it's finished, but i understand why those who are driving this often want a new safer road.
Dette er K5-alternativet


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

Rob73 said:


> Eventually cycling will hit a glass ceiling, in Norway that's the weather and topography, there will only be a finite number of people who are prepared to battle these conditions on a bike year round.


Yes, I agree, although electrical bikes have made hills a smaller challenge for some. Speaking of which, activists against road tolls in Stavanger have put up fake toll antennas for bikes, which they think should pay part of the bill...


----------



## Tronni

54°26′S 3°24′E said:


> Yes, I agree, although electrical bikes have made hills a smaller challenge for some. Speaking of which, activists against road tolls in Stavanger have put up fake toll antennas for bikes, which they think should pay part of the bill...











This was posted on the toll antennas. It says "financing of a 12-lane motorway to Figgjo."
Credits to @Nesvigen on Twitter.


----------



## riiga

Now that's quite funny


----------



## ChrisZwolle

It's a troll station.


----------



## Ingenioren

Rob73 said:


> I drove this road between Bergen and Voss this summer, it's not a nice road to drive on but the scenery almost makes up for it.


If you want scenery from Bergen to Voss you should try Bergsdalen:


----------



## Rob73

Hansadyret said:


> The plan is to build mostly long tunnels. Driving lots of long tunnels will probably make this the most boring road when it's finished, but i understand why those who are driving this often want a new safer road.
> Dette er K5-alternativet


We drove through the Lærdal tunnel this summer, I didn't really enjoy it, it's just too long, it really saps your concentration.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

Hansadyret said:


> The plan is to build mostly long tunnels. Driving lots of long tunnels will probably make this the most boring road when it's finished, but i understand why those who are driving this often want a new safer road.
> Dette er K5-alternativet


Is this still the plan? Tbh, 33.4 billion NOK for a highway to Voss seems a bit crazy to me, maybe Nye Veier should have a look?


----------



## Suburbanist

Here in Bergen they will build some new tunnels on E39 north of the city center, prolonging the Fløyentunnelen. The existing highway all the way to Åsane will be converted into a light rail trackbed and cycling/walking super-path. Or so is the idea I'd seen around here.


----------



## Ingenioren

Tunnel madness never ends, a few years ago Vegvesen proclaimed they would limit the tunneling of new roads due to the maintenance cost of tunnels escalating out of control. What happened?


----------



## ChrisZwolle

The newer tunnels probably have much more equipment and are built with more maintenance needs than those simple 1970s tunnels that just go through bare rock with a minimum lighting system.


----------



## Hansadyret

In 10 years they are pretty much finished to build motorways to kristiansand, Lillehammer and Hønefoss. What motorways are really needed to be built in eastern part of Norway then? I can't see much.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

E18 around Ski, E134 across / under Oslofjord, E134 Drammen - Kongsberg and E6 bypass of Oslo come to mind. 

There have also been talks about upgrading Rv. 3 to Gjøvik as an alternative route from Oslo to the north.


----------



## Hansadyret

This is big news:
The current government want to allow Statens Vegvesen to operate more independent like Nye Veier.
I'm sure they will get the support from Frp in doing this.


*Porteføljestyring*
I kommende Nasjonal transportplan vil regjeringen foreslå porteføljestyring. Det betyr at konkrete prosjekter ikke tas inn i andre halvdel av planperioden. I siste periode skal vi beskrive hvilke utfordringer vi vil løse og sette av ressurser til, men ikke binde oss til prosjekter som kan gå ut på dato.

Slik kan vi få mer igjen for samferdselskronene


----------



## ChrisZwolle

A big rock tumbled down on E6 near Skibotn, leaving a crater.


----------



## Ingenioren

A few photos of the Grotli - Geiranger road from top of Dalsnibba, what a joy to come here during corona and be all alone on such a brilliant road:

2020-10-06_12-58-39 by André Wauthier, on Flickr

2020-10-06_12-58-54 by André Wauthier, on Flickr


----------



## Ryme Intrinseca

Rob73 said:


> This entire project was a massive piece of excessive pork barrel politics, it's absolutely disgusting the amount of money being spent considering the year round population.


I rather agree. With a population of only 3,000 they could have given each resident a couple of million Krone - I'm sure they'd prefer the cash. It's the European equivalent of those empty 14 lane highways in the Middle East.


----------



## Uppsala

Ryme Intrinseca said:


> I rather agree. With a population of only 3,000 they could have given each resident a couple of million Krone - I'm sure they'd prefer the cash. It's the European equivalent of those empty 14 lane highways in the Middle East.



I also agree!

In general, I think that Norway feels more and more like a European version of the oil-producing countries in the Middle East. And Norway is also oil-producing. Anyone who travels from Hamburg, Copenhagen to Oslo, for example, actually notices this difference. On the motorway in Germany, Denmark and Sweden, the motorway is of the normal European type. It is basically the same from Germany via Denmark and Sweden.

But the difference comes as soon as you cross the border into Norway at Svinesund just south of Halden in Norway. The motorway completely changes character on the Norwegian side. All of a sudden, there is lighting all the way up to Oslo, despite the fact that there is almost less traffic on the Norwegian route than there is in Sweden, Denmark and Germany.

In Oslo, there is lots of lighting everywhere.

In oil-producing countries in the Middle East, motorways run through the desert with a lot of unnecessary lavish lighting. In Norway, there are instead motorways out in the woods with but a lot of unnecessary lavish lighting.

The Norwegian motorways feel a bit greedy. They look expensive. Some parts of the motorways through Oslo also pass through large and long tunnels that feel expensive and lavish.

The motorways in Norway look greedy and lavish. They look like someone wants to show that they have money in Norway to build this. Oil is produced in Norway. It is shown in this way.

So, yes, I agree. Norway has become a European version of the Middle East's oil-producing countries.

Now I'm afraid that Norwegians will come and get angry at me from this post 😁


----------



## Suburbanist

Norway has the most unfavorable terrain conditions for highway building in Europe as well, other than Andorra (maybe). Switzerland and Austria are dominated by the Alps, but they have uninterrupted gentle valleys to build most of their network + a few tunnels here and there.

40% of Norway's population distribution is scattered around fjords, which are very deep, and contrary to what happened in some other countries, its population did not coalesce in larger cities during the second industrial revolution (which left many abandoned hamlets in Northern part of Britain, for instance), but remained spread out.

Highway lighting was done extensively by Belgium and Netherlands until a few years ago, including very inefficient high-pole lighting with mercury vapor lamps.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

It's only recently that Norway has motorways extending more than 40 kilometers out of Oslo. As recent as 15 years ago the E6 motorway ended at Moss to the south and Gardermoen to the north. E18 ended its four lane segment just before Drammen. 

The radial routes out of Oslo aren't the biggest challenge though. I'd say even Oslo - Trondheim is not the biggest challenge, but roads to and along the west coast. Bergen has an abysmal road system for its population size, with only a few kilometers of motorways.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

IMO the urban road network of Bergen is fairly good compared with other Norwegian cities. The countryside of the west coast still have many narrow and winding roads, but construction costs are sometimes very high. 


Uppsala said:


> Now I'm afraid that Norwegians will come and get angry at me from this post


Now, I just wished your impression of Norwegian roads were true in general ;-) Lavish is certainly not the term that I think of when driving on most country roads, or urban streets for that matter, in Norway. True, there are some decent motorways radiating from Oslo now, but actually none through, and you do not need to venture far to find bumpy, narrow, winding, and yes, dark roads. On most international ratings, Norway is very far down with regard to quality of the road network. We are however a rather safety obsessed country. Although I am not sure about it's safety impact, that may explain the illumination of the motorways, in addition to rather low electricity prices and the fact that most Norwegian motorways are rather new. 








Day-ahead overview


Nord Pool runs the leading power market in Europe, and we offer day-ahead and intraday markets to our customers. Trade power in 16 countries and add related services such as compliance, data or courses.




www.nordpoolgroup.com


----------



## Rob73

Suburbanist said:


> Norway has the most unfavorable terrain conditions for highway building in Europe as well, other than Andorra (maybe). Switzerland and Austria are dominated by the Alps, but they have uninterrupted gentle valleys to build most of their network + a few tunnels here and there.
> 
> 40% of Norway's population distribution is scattered around fjords, which are very deep, and contrary to what happened in some other countries, its population did not coalesce in larger cities during the second industrial revolution (which left many abandoned hamlets in Northern part of Britain, for instance), but remained spread out.
> 
> Highway lighting was done extensively by Belgium and Netherlands until a few years ago, including very inefficient high-pole lighting with mercury vapor lamps.


Have you been to Croatia, the motorways along the Dalmatian Coast are built in difficult terrain. There are a lot of bridges and tunnels. 

I like motorway lighting, I don't really enjoy driving Germany's motorways at night, especially in winter, I'll take Norway well lit roads for the win!


----------



## Suburbanist

Rob73 said:


> Have you been to Croatia, the motorways along the Dalmatian Coast are built in difficult terrain. There are a lot of bridges and tunnels.


No, but compare the population of Croatia with its area and Norway... 



> I like motorway lighting, I don't really enjoy driving Germany's motorways at night, especially in winter, I'll take Norway well lit roads for the win!


I like it as well, in particular the new directional lighting with LED (that don't create that gaze common on 20m-tall poles with mercury diffusor lights).

Lights help deter certain wildlife crossing as well, I reckon, which is a positive.


----------



## Hansadyret

According to the new state budget presented today these 6 Nye Veier motorway projects will start in 2021:
E6 Kvithammer-Åsen, E6 Ulsberg-Vindåsliene, E6 Moelv-Roterud, E6 Roterud-Storhove, E6 Storhove-Øyer and E39 Herdal-Røyskår. 

With that 4 motorway projects will be under building on E39 and 7 on E6 in 2021.

Her er teknologinyhetene i statsbudsjettet


----------



## Hansadyret

ChrisZwolle said:


> The radial routes out of Oslo aren't the biggest challenge though. I'd say even Oslo - Trondheim is not the biggest challenge, but roads to and along the west coast. Bergen has an abysmal road system for its population size, with only a few kilometers of motorways.


The road system in Bergen itself is not that bad actually, most paid by roadtolls of course. There is lots of 4 lane roads and tunnels not marked as motorway. You can get quick from north to south to west in the city. When you reach the city limit it's a different story with lots of bendy 2 lane roads, but it's getting better with projects such as Svegatjørn-Rådal and Sotrasambandet.
Now we really need E39 Vågsbotn- Klauvaneset started but the city council with the *Green nutcases* is creating problems. The Greens want 1 lane for public transport for a few buses each hour. There will be no need for it. 
Why should we use 5 billion for just an extra lane for public transport. The old road has a traffic of over 20.000 each day with many accidents. 
Statens Vegvesen want a normal 4 lane road so i guess there will be no progress until we get a new city council.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

Hansadyret said:


> According to the new state budget presented today these 6 Nye Veier motorway projects will start in 2021:
> E6 Kvithammer-Åsen, E6 Ulsberg-Vindåsliene, E6 Moelv-Roterud, E6 Roterud-Storhove, E6 Storhove-Øyer and E39 Herdal-Røyskår.


Strictly speaking, E6 Kvithamar-Åsen and E6 Ulsberg-Vindåsliene is already somewhat started, with preparations of construction access roads and forest clearing etc. However, it is good that these are started in earnest before the election next year.

Speaking of "lavish" Norwegian roads, Ulsberg - Vindåsliene has currently some really interesting parts today, including the Stavåa bridge. It is not only narrow, but also seriously weakened such that the number of trucks on the bridge today is limited. In fact, even though the bridge will be bypassed in just a few years, Statens vegvesen considered setting up a temporary bridge in order to avoid a collapse. Instead, the bridge is now under tight surveillance, highly instrumented, and a digital twin is even set up.

















Something that was not funded was the widening of E6 through the Sluppen interchange in Trondheim. Despite having a combined traffic around 30 000 AADT, the two E6 through ramps are only single lane in each direction here. It would be an easy fix, so Statens vegvesen conservative models estimate a benefit /cost ratio of 8!








Node: 33046696 | OpenStreetMap


OpenStreetMap is a map of the world, created by people like you and free to use under an open license.




www.openstreetmap.org


----------



## Ingenioren

It's the same in Oslo, or even worse cause its got a 270 degree turn aswell - i wont speculate what aadt it has but its considerable


----------



## sponge_bob

Norway has half the peaks over 2000m, in all of Europe, on its own.
Most of these peaks are around where the population is, the northern parts are much flatter but very few people live there
In order to build a road from anywhere to anywhere, 2 cities or 2 villages with 1000 people each, a tunnel is required because the mountain passes are closed in winter.
The rock is granite, not limestone or mudstone.

So even though Norway is rich the terrain is brutal, the construction season short and the distances are considerable between populations + the peaks issues. It is unique in all the world apart from Nepal and Bhutan if you ask me.



Suburbanist said:


> Norway has the most unfavorable terrain conditions for highway building in Europe as well, other than Andorra (maybe). Switzerland and Austria are dominated by the Alps, but they have uninterrupted gentle valleys to build most of their network + a few tunnels here and there.
> 
> 40% of Norway's population distribution is scattered around fjords.


----------



## Hansadyret

54°26′S 3°24′E said:


> Strictly speaking, E6 Kvithamar-Åsen and E6 Ulsberg-Vindåsliene is already somewhat started, with preparations of construction access roads and forest clearing etc. However, it is good that these are started in earnest before the election next year.


Contracts will probably be be signed in 2021 to build E18 Langangen – Rugtvedt, E39 Bue-Ålgård and and maybe even E39 Mandal-Herdal E18 Dørdal-Tvedestrand. It seems the municipals and Nye veier are working fast with regulation plans. They know there could be problems after next election. I think they've come to long with those projects for a new government to stop it.

The way i see it, the motorway roads that could be in danger is E39 Lyngdal-Bue, E18 Grimstad-Arendal and E16 Kløfta-Kongsvinger.


----------



## Ingenioren

sponge_bob said:


> Norway has half the peaks over 2000m, in all of Europe, on its own.
> Most of these peaks are around where the population is, the northern parts are much flatter but very few people live there


Sure, but the population and motorways is centred around Oslo were the terrain is hilly, but not mountainous. I imagine if the E6 from Oslo to Svinesund were in another european country it wouldnt have those long tunnels that are infact excessive.


----------



## kosimodo

sponge_bob said:


> Norway has half the peaks over 2000m, in all of Europe, on its own.



FYI:

There are about 200 peaks over 2000 meters in Norway. 

There are, only in the alps, already over 500 peaks over 3000 m..


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

sponge_bob said:


> Norway has half the peaks over 2000m, in all of Europe, on its own.
> Most of these peaks are around where the population is, the northern parts are much flatter but very few people live there
> In order to build a road from anywhere to anywhere, 2 cities or 2 villages with 1000 people each, a tunnel is required because the mountain passes are closed in winter.
> The rock is granite, not limestone or mudstone.





kosimodo said:


> FYI:
> 
> There are about 200 peaks over 2000 meters in Norway.
> 
> There are, only in the alps, already over 500 peaks over 3000 m..


The "number of peaks" is only defined if you set a minimum prominence for the peaks to be counted. In any case, the number of peaks above a given height is not very useful to describe the roughness of terrain. The number of peaks overall above a given priminence would be slightly more meaningful. Here e.g. mainland Norway has 602 peaks with prominence above 590 m according to this page. A better measure is possible to more systematically estimate the roughness of the terrain, e.g. like in the terrain ruggedness index map presented here: Terrain Ruggedness Index. This index is the average elevation difference between points 30 arc seconds appart. Norway has an index of 241, which in fact places the country on a 15th place in Europe (and 41st globally).

CountryRI (m/arcsec)European RankGibraltar781.1​1​Monaco661.2​2​Andorra571.7​3​Liechtenstein532.8​4​Switzerland476.1​5​Georgia365.9​6​Austria351.3​7​Albania342.7​8​Greece310.3​9​Cyprus271.8​10​North Macedonia266.5​11​Turkey262​12​Slovenia249.6​13​Italy245.8​14​Norway240.9​15​

However, the ruggedness divided by the area population density is more likely to better reflect the cost per capita. Here, Norway will be second in Europe, and 9th in the world

*Country**RI (m/arcsec)**Population ** Land Area (km^2) **Ruggedness/pop density**European Rank*Iceland147.2​ 341 243 100 25043.24​1​Norway240.9​ 5 421 241 365 26816.23​2​Russia94​ 145 934 462 16 376 87010.55​3​Faeroe Islands225.3​ 48 863 1 3966.44​4​Georgia365.9​ 3 989 167 69 4906.37​5​Greece310.3​ 10 423 054 128 9003.84​6​Bosnia and Herzegovina231.1​ 3 280 819 51 0003.59​7​Andorra571.7​ 77 265 4703.48​8​Albania342.7​ 2 877 797  27 4003.26​9​North Macedonia266.5​ 2 083 374 25 2203.23​10​Austria351.3​ 9 006 398 82 4093.21​11​Sweden71.5​ 10 099 265 410 3402.91​12​


*Country**RI (m/arcsec)** Population ** Land Area (km^2) **Ruggedness/pop density**World Rank*Greenland41​ 56 770 410 450296.43​1​Falkland Islands26.4​ 3 480 12 17092.32​2​Mongolia105.7​ 3 278 290 1 553 56050.09​3​Iceland147.2​ 341 243 100 25043.24​4​Bhutan674​ 771 608 38 11733.30​5​Namibia91.3​ 2 540 905 823 29029.58​6​Saint Helena386.3​ 6 077 39024.79​7​Canada77.5​ 37 742 154 9 093 51018.67​8​Norway240.9​ 5 421 241 365 26816.23​9​Kyrgyzstan428.7​ 6 524 195 191 80012.60​10​New Zealand203.8​ 4 822 233 263 31011.13​11​Russia94​ 145 934 462 16 376 87010.55​12​
Needless to say, Netherlands and Singapore are on the bottom of these lists among major countries.

However, costs due to terrain are of course, as already discussed, also dependent on factors such population distribution in the terrain, the directions of valleys, other barriers not reflected in the "RI" as bodies of water (which Norway have plenty of), weather conditions, the geology, and a range of other factors. And of course, the real costs of highway construction also include the value of the land and wages, both which varies wildly but typically ends up higher in densely populated and affluent countries. Hence Netherlands and Singapore are both of course far from the cheapest countries to develope a suitable infrastructure, but it should be noted that in rugged countries the areas suitable for road construction are also often in high demand in developed areas.



sponge_bob said:


> The rock is granite, not limestone or mudstone


I am no expert, but among these I think granite is most suitable for tunnels.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

54°26′S 3°24′E said:


> I am no expert, but among these I think granite is most suitable for tunnels.


Norway / Scandinavia are one of the few places in Europe where tunnels are usually bored with the conventional explosives method. This is a relatively inexpensive construction method. For example, the 10.7 kilometer long Toven Tunnel has cost only 600 million NOK / € 55 million, a figure that buys you maybe a 0.5 km tunnel in the Alps.


----------



## MichiH

MattiG said:


> There is nothing innovative on narrow motorways. They are just cheaper to build than wide ones.


And less land consumption thus less opposition by conservationists and land owners.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

E134 will be upgraded to a narrow four lane motorway instead of a 2+1 road between Kongsberg and Notodden:









Notodden/Kongsberg: Planprogrammet for E134 Saggrenda-Elgsjø vedtatt


Planprogrammet for E134-strekningen Saggrenda-Elgsjø er nå vedtatt både i Kongsberg og Notodden kommuner




www.vegvesen.no


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

MichiH said:


> And less land consumption thus less opposition by conservationists and land owners.


I think that is a very minor issue. Conservationist will protest anyway, and in hilly Norway, curvature specifications, essentially determined by the speed limit, is often much more important for the use of valuable land and changes of the landscape than a few meters width difference.


----------



## MattiG

54°26′S 3°24′E said:


> I think that is a very minor issue. Conservationist will protest anyway, and in hilly Norway, curvature specifications, essentially determined by the speed limit, is often much more important for the use of valuable land and changes of the landscape than a few meters width difference.


If it were a major issue, the countries would build double-decker motorways in the countryside, too. 

The estimate of 20 per cent in Finland includes the land acquisition cost, I believe. It is quite a minor cost element, because the rural land is usually cheap. For example, the total cost estimate of the motorway project Kirri-Tikkakoski on 4/E75 (under construction) was 150 million euros in 2014. The land acquisition cost and damage compensations were 2 million of the total cost.


----------



## MichiH

54°26′S 3°24′E said:


> I think that is a very minor issue.


Maybe in Nordics but it is a relevant issue in Central Europe.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Is it a problem in Germany? You often read about landowners appealing. 

In the Netherlands land acquisition is almost never a problem for any kind of road project. Usually the agricultural land is acquired without needing to implement eminent domain, the landowner receives a third-party assessment of the value and then it is transferred for a fair market price. Even if houses need to be acquired the owners get a good offer and the land is sold to the government. Projects are virtually never delayed over land acquisition. 

The land acquisition is also separate from the plan approval process.


----------



## MichiH

It is more an issue about opposition by conservationists. One of their major arguments is land consumption, see A8 Rosenheim - Salzburg where only wanna widen the motorway from 2x2 w/o hard shoulders to 2x2 with hard shoulders and shoulder running instead of 2x3 with hard shoulders.


----------



## Hansadyret

ChrisZwolle said:


> E134 will be upgraded to a narrow four lane motorway instead of a 2+1 road between Kongsberg and Notodden:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Notodden/Kongsberg: Planprogrammet for E134 Saggrenda-Elgsjø vedtatt
> 
> 
> Planprogrammet for E134-strekningen Saggrenda-Elgsjø er nå vedtatt både i Kongsberg og Notodden kommuner
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.vegvesen.no


This is important. The better E134 become the more pressure from the Bergen area to get a better connection to E134.
Political parties are now demanding a KVU is started for a "arm" to Bergen.
Flertall for at arbeidet med KVU for E134-arm til Bergen igangsettes i år


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Nye Veier has signed a contract with Eiffage to upgrade E18 around Porsgrunn to motorway standards. This will mostly be a greenfield motorway as the existing express road is unsuitable for a twinning.

The contracted segment is 17 kilometers long from Rugtvedt to Langangen. A second Grenland Bridge is part of the project. The current high bridges at Langangen will be bypassed.

The contract value is 4.9 billion NOK (€ 470 million) excluding VAT.





__





Nye Veier: Signerte med EIFFAGE Génie Civil for utbygging for ny E18 Rugtvedt – Langangen | Nye Veier AS







www.nyeveier.no


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

MichiH said:


> It is more an issue about opposition by conservationists. One of their major arguments is land consumption, see A8 Rosenheim - Salzburg where only wanna widen the motorway from 2x2 w/o hard shoulders to 2x2 with hard shoulders and shoulder running instead of 2x3 with hard shoulders.


Certainly environmentalists would use consumption of land as an argument when the narrow has to be widened some time in the future. However, when the initial projects are evaluated for approval by the national and local authorities, a few percentages differences in land use is not likely to be a decisive factor. Remember also that normally the land area used by the road is significantly wider than the tarmac.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

The Fv. 714 Laksevegen upgrade completion may be pushed into 2021. They performed a safety test at the Slørdal Tunnel, which did not went satisfactory. The equipment and infrastructure itself doesn't have any problems but the contingency plans are insufficient.

There might be a temporary / partial opening.





__





404 - Noe gikk galt






www.trondelagfylke.no





The most notable segment of this project is the new Åstfjord Bridge:


----------



## Hansadyret

ChrisZwolle said:


> The Fv. 714 Laksevegen upgrade completion may be pushed into 2021. They performed a safety test at the Slørdal Tunnel, which did not went satisfactory. The equipment and infrastructure itself doesn't have any problems but the contingency plans are insufficient.
> 
> There might be a temporary / partial opening.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 404 - Noe gikk galt
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.trondelagfylke.no
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The most notable segment of this project is the new Åstfjord Bridge:


When i saw this picture i almost became a member of Norges Naturvernforbund.


----------



## Gsus

Hansadyret said:


> When i saw this picture i almost became a member of Norges Naturvernforbund.


I think they might have chosen the worst angle possible for taking that picture. I looks like the brigde curves to the right, before then curving to the left. But I think the "right curve" on the bridge actually is that the bridge descends, and that it might look better from another angle. Anyway, might not be the most beautiful structure in such a place


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

Well, if you do not like visible infrastructure, you might be in favor of the alternative plan currently considered in Støren at another location in Trøndelag. Originally, Nye Veier planned keeping the old highway alignment south of the Fv 30 interchange (Røros highway) for southbound traffic, and building a new 2.7 km tunnel to the east for northbound traffic. Since the tunnel only would carry the northbound traffic, they thought it was OK to omit emergency exits, but Vegvesenet did not agree. Hence, Nye Veier is now considered a longer (4.4 km) dual tube tunnel west of Støren, bypassing the old E6 altogether. Apart from the obvious environmental advantages of removing the E6 from the river (although the current highway will still be needed for local and Røros traffic), it would also mean a 2.3 km shortening of E6. Also, meeting the demands of Vegvesenet means that the old plan is not necessarily any chew. However, the long tunnel alternative will be useful for less users, as a significant part of the traffic on E6 north of Støren proceeds to Fv 30.

















OpenStreetMap


OpenStreetMap is a map of the world, created by people like you and free to use under an open license.




www.openstreetmap.org





This would become the 4th motorway tunnel longer than 3.5 km on E6 Trøndelag planned or u/c. Whenever the E6 tunnel in Soknedal south of Støren is dualled that would become the 5th.There are many shorter motorway tunnels planned / under construction as well.

It is a bit hard to imagine that less than 30 years ago, the highway between Trondheim and Oslo had to pass this narrow bridge with 90 degrees turns in both ends north of Støren. This historic part of E6 is now county road 6558.








This narrow section of the valley was btw the cause of one of largest natural catastrophes in Norway, Back in 1345, a huge landslide made a natural dam, closing off the whole river. In that initial phase, more than 25 farms were flooded and completely ruined upstream. When the dam eventually broke it lead to devestation downstream, killing at least 500 people, and erasing at least 50 farms and 7 churches.

There are still irregular smaller landslides in the area, as seen below where the old E6 pre 1993 was closed off..


----------



## Tronni

Statens vegvesen has completed an impact assessment for new entrances to Tromsø, and they recommend building a new E8 from Målselv to Tromsø, as well as some upgrades on the old road.


















Anbefaler forbedring av E8, og deretter ny veg sørover fra Tromsø | Statens vegvesen


Statens vegvesen anbefaler ny veg mellom Tromsø og Målselv. Men først vil Vegvesenet forbedre de dårligste strekningene på E8. – Da kan Tromsø på kort sikt få en tryggere hovedinnfart.




www.vegvesen.no


----------



## ChrisZwolle

__





Følg byggingen av Trysfjordbrua på nettkamera | Nye Veier AS







www.nyeveier.no





A webcam has been installed where you can follow the construction of the Trysfjord Bridge of E39 in southwestern Norway.

This is a cantilevered box girder bridge with a 260 meter main span. I believe this could be the longest four lane bridge of this type in Europe. Usually box girder motorway bridges aren't much longer than circa 200 meters.

Screenshot:


----------



## Hansadyret

95 was killed in norwegian traffic in 2020. Not since 1947 there was similar low numbers. In 1970 there was 560 dead. This will probably continue to fall with this massive building of new safer roads.
Historisk lave dødstall på norske veier i 2020 | Statens vegvesen


----------



## Rob73

Hansadyret said:


> 95 was killed in norwegian traffic in 2020. Not since 1947 there was similar low numbers. In 1970 there was 560 dead. This will probably continue to fall with this massive building of new safer roads.
> Historisk lave dødstall på norske veier i 2020 | Statens vegvesen


A lot of this is also due to reduced traffic for a large part of the year, if you remember this little issue called Coivid, it kept people at home.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

I am not so sure. The volumes of rural highway traffic, where most of the serious accidents occur, have in total been very close to 2019 due to higher summer traffic. See for instance this, kind of random, statistics for Korporalsbrua on E6:
Monthly: Trafikkdata
Yearly: Trafikkdata


----------



## ChrisZwolle

The Stordal Tunnel of E134 in Etne municipality will become toll-free on 15 January:









Nyheter og pressekontakt | Ferde.no


Her finner du våre siste nyheter og presseansvarlig.



ferde.no





The tunnel was built as part of an E134 realignment and opened on 7 March 2016. E134 has seen tolls at this location since 1 November 2014 and the project was forecasted to be paid off in 2030, but the government has paid it off now.

Location of the tunnel: OpenStreetMap

There is another tunnel by this name in Møre og Romsdal, almost all internet references are from that tunnel apparently.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

"Stordal" = "big valley". Pretty generic, and there is a municipality called this in M&R.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

The Tresfjord Bridge of E136 becomes toll-free on 15 January:






Nyheter | Vegamot | Vegamot AS







www.vegamot.no





The bridge opened in 2015 as a toll bridge. It was financed through tolls and state funding, the tolls are now paid off by the government, making it toll-free.










Additionally, toll collection on the side road of E6 Øyer - Tretten will end on 18 January.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

The 2.8 kilometer long Gotevik Tunnel opened to traffic today along the Sognefjord near Vik. It bypasses an avalanche-prone stretch of Riksvei 13.

Location: OpenStreetMap


----------



## Cinamon

I'm curious, do Norwegians have a plan how they are going to maintain all this infrastructure in the long run? Are they expecting a population boom as even connections to remote locations with little population are being improved?

EDIT: I've dug deeper, turns out a lot of tunnels in Norway do not require sealing. Nice.


----------



## Suburbanist

Norwegian tunnels might require substantial safety improvements in the future.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Countries all over Europe are finding out that tunnels become a significant financial burden in the road system. Norway has also adopted EU regulations about tunnel safety. There is a trend that tunnel testing and tunnel renovations are requiring significantly more time and money than 10 or 20 years ago.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

I read in a 10 year old report that 5 % of the national road network in Oslo back then was tunnels, but these consumed 1/3 of the the maintenance and operational costs. For tunnels with little traffic, the maintenance costs are lower, but higher than normal maintenance costs still is why e.g. Nye Veier try to avoid tunnels if they can.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

The weather is rough in Northern Norway tonight. Mountain passes on E6 (two places), E10, E12, and sections and bridges of many other roads are closed.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

No more free rides on the Ryfast tunnels in Stavanger: tolling will start on 1 February.

The Ryfylke Tunnel (14.4 km) opened in December 2019. The Hundvåg Tunnel (5.6 km) opened in April 2020. It was planned to commence tolling quickly after opening, but technical problems delayed this. They estimate a lost revenue of 383 million NOK, the Ryfylke Tunnel was toll-free for 13 months. Traffic volumes were also some 67% higher than forecasted.

The toll rate will be 140 NOK for the Ryfylke Tunnel and 28 NOK for the Hundvåg Tunnel.









Nyheter og pressekontakt | Ferde.no


Her finner du våre siste nyheter og presseansvarlig.



ferde.no


----------



## Suburbanist

Are there any major bridge using a pavement-heating solution to prevent ice formation?


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

I do not think so.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

This was status of the defacto main highway between Oslo and Trondheim, Rv 3, last week. Close to Koppang, I believe. No wonder foreign trucks routinely run into troubles on Norwegian winter roads.
















Elendige kjøreforhold på riksvei 3 i Østerdalen


Lastebilsjåfører er sjokkerte over forholdene på riksveg 3.




www.nrk.no


----------



## devo

Well, the local politicians seem to have lowered the maintenance standard following a recommendation from Statens vegvesen. Amusingly, the Norwegian "libertarian" party (FrP) complains about this not being resolved quickly while the contractor just points to the contract... Kind of a contradiction there when the party who would privatise their own grandmother complains about complications due to privatisations. 
I'm not saying that the old way of doing it was better (when the road authorities also did maintenance) but at least then you could just send someone out to fix it immediately instead of going through six degrees of contractual turbulence. /rant


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

Yeah, right, as that always happened (or is happening in my politically blood red city). Most studies I have seen has btw concluded that the "privatized grandmother" has a better time than the public one...


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

A new section of Fv 6132 was unofficially opened Dec. 15th at the coast of Trøndelag in Berfjorden of Roan municipality. It includes two tunnels of 920 and 670 m and 1.5 km of upgraded roads outside the tunnel. The project was funded mainly to avoide erosion / quick clay landslide and rock falls, it seems. This is a true example of rural Norway, with an estimated AADT below 400.








One of the tunnel portals

More pictures (behind a pay wall it seems): (+) - Offisiell åpning er utsatt til det igjen blir mulig å samle folkemengder









Old road

Map: Node: ‪Berfjord‬ (‪7099990547‬) | OpenStreetMap


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Another Trøndelag project will open soon: the Fv 714 Laksevegen with Åstfjord Bridge will open in week 8: 22-26 February



Fv. 714 Laksevegen


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

That is a far more important highway, with higher traffic and connecting the two largest islands of Trøndelag to the rest of the county. A significant fraction of the Norwegian salmon export uses that road, hence the nickname, which translates to "Salmon Road". The Åstfjord project is the last section of a decade long upgrade program of the county highway:


----------



## ChrisZwolle

The old suspension Varodden Bridge of E18 near Kristiansand has disappeared quickly. (former view)


----------



## Ingenioren

The quiet mountainpass Haukeli (E134) early morning:
2021-02-01_10-54-31 by André Wauthier, on Flickr

This is near to Stordal were the tolls were removed - guess Frp politics still after Frp left the government:
2021-02-01_11-33-17 by André Wauthier, on Flickr

E134 near the semifrozen Langfoss waterfall:
2021-02-01_11-33-33 by André Wauthier, on Flickr

North sea road (Fv44) Near Jøssingfjord:
2021-02-01_10-54-59 by André Wauthier, on Flickr
Inside the old tunnels, appearantly the new ones were opened in 2009, these now function as a bike/walk tunnels
2021-02-01_10-56-30 by André Wauthier, on Flickr
Here you can see both old and new tunnels, the new one is also quite narrow and lacks lighting i guess they went with authenticity being a tourist road and all:
2021-02-01_10-56-40 by André Wauthier, on Flickr

This area is quite spectacular, and must be the only place in Norway right now not below 0 degrees:
2021-02-01_11-32-58 by André Wauthier, on Flickr


----------



## ChrisZwolle

A nice webcam shot of the new Trysfjord Bridge of E39 near Søgne.
I'm surprised that the fjord freezes over, this is one of the southernmost points of Norway. Even though the fjord is protected from the open seas, it's a nearly enclosed location. Salt water also freezes at a slightly lower temperature than regular water. Apparently the Gulf Stream has less impact here than around Bergen.


----------



## Ingenioren

That water is most likely not so salt as the sea. When i drove past it was -2 ish


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

[ot]The dynamics of sea ice formation is quite different from fresh water lakes. Unlike fresh water, saline water gets denser with lower temperature until it freezes. Hence, as the top water cools down, it gets heavier and mix with the lower, warmer layers of water, so essentially, the whole body of water needs to cool down to the freezing temperature of -1.9 C, which of course only happens in very shallow water and extreme temperatures over a very long time. Instead, sea ice is almost always created from a layer of water with lower salinity floating on top of the denser saline sea water. Typically it starts in sheltered areas close to a river mouth.

Factors that contribute to sea ice formation is stable cold weather and snow fall, the latter will make the top layer fresher, will cool down the water significantly, and can also be starting point for nucleation. On the other hand, rough seas and wind and tidal currents all contribute to mixing of the layers and break up the ice.

Winter temperatures are generally mildest along the outer coast. The wind and wave impact is of course more sever in more open waters and at the west/ north coasts of Norway. At the southern tip of Norway, there is almost no tide at all. Going northwards from there, the tide however increases as you go north, and in the Trondheim fjord the difference between low and high tide is around 2.30 m on average. 

In general, south-eastern part of Norway is quite prone to sea ice formation as there are quite a lot of rivers entering the larger Oslo fjord, it is quite sheltered, and there could even come some brakish surface water from the Baltic Sea. Possibly also the Gulf stream has a smaller impact than at the western coast of Norway as Chris mentioned. At times (last time in the 80s, I think), there is sea ice all the way from Norway to Denmark, across the Skagerrak Strait. Also narrower fjords here and there could have ice, whereas sea ice is never seen in the main Trondheim fjord which is quite open, and probably more important, is deep and has relative large differences between low and high tide. That is why the Germans decided to place the submarine base for their 13th flotilla in Trondheim during the very cold winters of WW2.








*Ice skating on the Oslofjord at the end of January 2021*
[/ot]


----------



## Nikolaj

Ice between Denmark and Norway across Skagerrak Strait in the 1980's? Certainly not. Skagerrak and the North Sea has not been frozen in historic times. And not even between Sweden and Jutland at least the last century. For the past 150 years the worst icewinters were in 1940s, but even back then Kattegat beween Denmark and Sweden was not frozen alle the way, only between the coast and some of the coastal islands. The narrow sounds like the fjords in eastern Jutland, The Great Belt and Øresund was frozen last time back in 80s, but not the Little Belt, between Jutland and Funen, as the current here is too strong. Until 20-30 years ago we frequently saw frozen seas in the Baltic Sea south of Funen and Zealand, Last time the naval operated icebreakers was in action was in 1995/96,and the Naval Icebreaker Service was closed i 2012, and the remaining icebreakers were scrapped.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

I do only have Norwegian sources on this from the media in 2010, e. g from Varden: – Skagerrak kan fryse 
Also I have found the text copied below a couple of places on internet, apparently from an article in Aftenposten, but I do not have access to the primary source. 

Historically, the most consequential freeze-over in Scandinavia was of course in 1658 when the Swedish troops could walk on the ice and surprised and forced a capitulation of the Danish king in Copenhagen, while his army was busy elsewhere (Schleswig-Holstein in present Germany) . In the ensuing peace accord significant Danish and Norwegian landscapes were ceded to Sweden, only Trøndelag and Bornholm later returned. 








----

■1996: Store deler av Kattegat og Skagerrak islagt.

■1987: Den siste kalde vinteren hva temperatur angår. Omfattende islegging i Kattegat og farvannene mellom Norge og Danmark. Oslofjorden ble holdt åpen av nordavind, som drev isen ut fjorden. Store isproblemer i Danmark.

■1986: Svært omfattende islegging – en kort periode var hele Skagerrak og Kattegat islagt nord for en linje Skagen - Lindesnes.

■1985: Store deler av Oslofjorden, Skagerrak og Kattegat islagt. På senvinteren var det mye vind som stuet is inn i fjordene på Øst- og Sørlandet. Store isproblemer i havnene.

■1982: Omfattende islegging, men forsvant tidlig. I månedsskiftet januar/februar var det meste borte.

■1966: Den virkelig store isvinteren i Oslofjorden, Skagerrak og Kattegat. Da lå isen helt ut til Lindesnes, og man kunne gå til Færder på trygg is.

■1963: Også en svært kald vinter.

■1941 og 1942: Svært kalde vintre med omfattende tilfrysing.

Kilde: Ketil Isaksen, Meteorologisk institutt på Blindern


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

The city council of Trondheim on Thursday approved the plan of Statens Vegvesen to expand the ramps of the E6 bypass at Sluppen just south of the city center. The ramps are currently single lane and have been the worst bottleneck in Trondheim lately. It would have been quite strange to keep E6 with single lane ramps here while rural sections north and south of the city become motorway. The investment is quite small, and in the best case construction will start, and maybe even complete, in 2021. The long term plan is to make a tunnel for E6 in the area.

Areal photo:





Norge i bilder







www.norgeibilder.no




Streetview:








Google Maps


Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.




maps.app.goo.gl




OSM:








OpenStreetMap


OpenStreetMap is a map of the world, created by people like you and free to use under an open license.




osm.org


----------



## Mathias Olsen

E6 Sluppen is indeed a bottleneck with relatively high speeds and the traffic volume is also large. 
The reason for accidents are many times so-called shock waves in the traffic flow. 
These shock waves often start when a driver in a traffic flow at a steady speed for one reason or another makes a deceleration. 
The result is rear-end accidents.


----------



## Corvinus

Funny how "Innsatsleder" doesn't seem to make any sense at the first glimpse, but then maps comfortably to German "Einsatzleiter"


----------



## ChrisZwolle

If you know German, English & Dutch then you can read a lot of Norwegian.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

Corvinus said:


> Funny how "Innsatsleder" doesn't seem to make any sense at the first glimpse, but then maps comfortably to German "Einsatzleiter"


Genau (which has no similar counterpart in Norwegian)

I have heard a theory that there are some words stemming from Proto-Germanic that are pronounced similarly in Schwyzertüütsch and in Norwegian, that has developed differently in the Germanic languages in between. The theory was presented to me by a Norwegian living in Switzerland who I consider to be far above average intelligent, providing me a few examples I have long since forgotten. Still I am not sure I believe in it ;-)


----------



## Mathias Olsen

Corvinus said:


> Funny how "Innsatsleder" doesn't seem to make any sense at the first glimpse, but then maps comfortably to German "Einsatzleiter"


Interesting discovery Perhaps the police learned a new word from visitors during 1940-1945 Einsatzleiter


----------



## ChrisZwolle

The toll rates on the Rv. 3/25 upgrade project between Løten and Elverum will be cut in half from Friday. It is a trial that will run for 1.5 years.









Halv takst mellom Løten og Elverum


Fra fredag 19. februar blir det halv takst som en prøveordning på rv. 3/25 Løten-Elverum.




www.regjeringen.no


----------



## ChrisZwolle

The Svinesund Bridge of E6 on the Swedish border becomes toll-free on 15 March:









Ingen markering på Svinesund 15. mars


Mandag 15. mars kl. 14.00 avvikles bompengeinnkrevingen ved Svinesund




www.regjeringen.no


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

Unfortunately not a lot of people will enjoy this just now. The weekend traffic is almost gone. Note that other border crossings in the area are completely closed, so the real decrease in cross border traffic is even larger. Although there are a few exceptions for the quarantine requirements, and a few more for the general ban of entry (both ways), I assume a quite large share of the remaining traffic is trucks.








Marine green: Traffic last week
Orange: Corresponding week last year

Edit: Assumption confirmed. This is the same statistics for long vehicles. Minimal changes from 2020.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

[slightly ot] This of course would also make the E6 south of Svinesund, through the northern part of the former Norwegian landscape of Båhuslen (Bohus län in Swedish) , so well covered by one of Chris' videos, pretty much vacated.




[/ot]


----------



## ChrisZwolle

The Åstfjord Bridge of Fv. 714 (Laksevegen) has opened to traffic today, which means that the Fv. 714 upgrade has now been completed. The bridge is 735 meters long, with 8 spans, the longest of which is 100 meters long. It has a 25 meter sailing clearance.



404 - Noe gikk galt



Location: OpenStreetMap

A photo from NRK (looks like it was taken last fall)


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

The weather can be pretty rough at the Norwegian coast. On Saturday, the day after the opening, the bridge had to close due to a winter storm at 30 m/s.


----------



## berlinwroclaw

Hansadyret said:


> This is important. The better E134 become the more pressure from the Bergen area to get a better connection to E134.
> Political parties are now demanding a KVU is started for a "arm" to Bergen.
> Flertall for at arbeidet med KVU for E134-arm til Bergen igangsettes i år


Yes, is a indeed a big step forward for better road infrastructure between Eastern and Western Norway. We are waiting for next step. Business case (KVU) will be ready in Q2 2021, before the new NTP is presented. But the Bergen Arm view cannot be isolated from the discussion about the E39 from Haugesund to Bergen. Therefore an integrated decision is needed over two views: the Bergen Arm view and the E39 view.

*Bergen Arm View*










For the Bergen Arm, 4 actual main alternatives have been discussed within media and relevant transport organisations:

Alternative North – cheapest and fastest to realize. In western section combined with existing Rv 7 and E16.
Alternative Mid 1 – actual favorite. One of the shortest distances to Oslo, but high costs with 2 long tunnels and 6 bridges.
Alternative Mid 2 – shortest distance to Oslo, but most expensive. Traveling time must be very important when this alternative will be selected, since the advantage to Alternative Mid 1 is not much and costs are much higher.
Alternative South – can be combined for the western section with E39, but longest distance of all alternatives.

Most likely will be Alternative Mid 1. It is possible that in the new NTP a bridge near Jondal will be constructed, so that the Bergen Arm goes via Alternative North. After the bridge will be open, gradually the rest of Alternative Mid 1 can be completed.

*E39 View*










For a new E39 road between Haugesund and Bergen, 3 main alternatives have been suggested within media and relevant transport organisations:

Green alternative – Has been refuted, too expensive and less benefits compared with others.
Yellow alternative – Actual favorite. Case studies (so far) show greater net benefit (within E39 view) compared with the Blue alternative.
Blue alternative – Has been refuted by Bergen, because they prefer the faster Yellow alternative.

*Decision making*
For all Bergen Arm scenarios, except Alternative South, a new bridge near Jondal is needed. For the two most likely E39 scenarios, a bridge near Jektevik will be needed. Now it comes to act. In case of strong governance, full realisation of Bergen Arm Alternative Mid 1 and E39 the Blue Alternative may have the overall best social and economical benefits. Otherwise for coming years only limited investments, such as the Jondal bridge and bridge near Jektevik. Just enough to satisfy Norwegian parliament majority. It has the advantage that a final decision between the alternatives can be postponed. It is not impossible this will be the outcome.


----------



## Hansadyret

The national government have already chosen the western yellow alternative for E39 and are now working on the regulation plan (COWI just got the contract). Contruction could start in 2025. With that i expect the northern alternative for a better connection to E134 being chosen since it would be much cheaper.


----------



## The Wild Boy

You think there could be a full motorway connection from Oslo to Bergen anytime in the future? If not at least a 2+2 road? 
Or isn't there a lot of traffic going from Oslo to Bergen and vice versa? 
Am i missing something here? Norway's 2 biggest cities are not properly connected. Now i know there's the big mountains, fjords and the distance. Do people really prefer flying and / or going by train?


----------



## threo2k

Norway are greedy people, and dont want to spend money on roads. Simple as that


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

Hansadyret said:


> Nye veier is taking over more of E6 north of Trondheim.
> (+) Nye Veier tar over to E6-strekninger i Trøndelag. Får et budsjett på over 11 milliarder.


Åsen-Vist (54 km, Google map: Steinkjer to E6), and Selli-Asp (4 km, OpenStreetMap), to be precise. The former means that Steinkjer - Trondheim (and in extension Steinkjer-Trondheim-UIsberg (210 km)) will be mostly motorway in a not too distant future, with some notable exceptions. If only there could be some development also on Trondheim (Klett) - Orkanger, all main population centers along the shores of Trondheimsfjorden (the Trondheim Fjord) would be connected.

In the mean time, Nye Veier has met quite a lot of predictable NIMBY activity regarding E6 south of Trondheim as they have suggested some changes in the currently approved plans.



Hansadyret said:


> Nye Veier will build Ringeriksbanen instead of Bane Nor. I didn't expect that one.
> Nå lover regjeringen nye togspor til Hønefoss. Men det er ikke Bane Nor som får bygge dem.


Maybe because they will also will build E16 in the same project, and railway projects have chronically been way over budgets lately?








Nye Veier skal bygge Ringeriksbanen


Regjeringen varsler at de vil gi Nye Veier oppdraget med å bygge både Ringeriksbanen og ny E16.




www.bygg.no


----------



## Ingenioren

The E134 past Røldal is being planned as a 2+2 motorway, however first construction step will be half profile. What did happend with the twin-tubing of tunnels with large amount of traffic, like Strømsåstunnel. It was part of a tollring for Drammen that got voted down, but doesn't EU regulations require it to be doubled anyway?


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

Not much for the last 4 years it seems...








E134 Strømsåstunnelen


Strømsåstunnelen har toveistrafikk, og tilfredssstiller pga. trafikkmengden ikke tunnel kravene til sikkerhet.




www.vegvesen.no


----------



## berlinwroclaw

Ingenioren said:


> The E134 past Røldal is being planned as a 2+2 motorway, however first construction step will be half profile. What did happend with the twin-tubing of tunnels with large amount of traffic, like Strømsåstunnel. It was part of a tollring for Drammen that got voted down, but doesn't EU regulations require it to be doubled anyway?


Must be good news for many people. Who has decided to start construction in half profile? Has there been a decision to select one of the alternatives for the Bergen Arm?


----------



## Mathias Olsen

Ingenioren said:


> The E134 past Røldal is being planned as a 2+2 motorway, however first construction step will be half profile.


This decision is a milestone. The news is that the E134 section Røldal – Notodden has been added in the offical planning as a motorway. The section E134 Notodden – Drammen had already that status. Which section will be implemented first?

1. Røldal - Grungedal











The most expensive section, but also interesting. It will make the road via Haukeli snowfree and better suited for heavy trucks. There will be a temptation to construct the tunnel as twin tube to save budget.

2. Grungedal – Hjartdal













The section is between Grungedal and Hjartdal via Rauland. The best investment (although not the cheapest) to make the road via Haukeli the shortest road between Bergen and Oslo. After that the traffic volume on the E134 to Oslo will rise and new investments will be easier to accept.

3. Hjartdal – Notodden











Starting with this section has the advantage that it is cheap and can be operational in a relative short time. It will improve safety and will give little reduction in time, but less than other sections.



The new E134 Røldal to Drammen with Jondal bridge will be the shortest road between East and West. A traffic backbone. Not only interesting for Bergen, but also for Stavanger. Bergen-Oslo in 3,5 hours and Stavanger-Oslo in 4 hours in case all plans are operational. Patience will be needed.


----------



## Ingenioren

Its being planned with two tunnel tubes on the long tunnels on either side of Røldal for safety issues, however single tubes will be built in the first stage untill traffic picks up as stipulated by Vegdirektoratet. However the government can choose to build double tubes right away if they wish since the regulationplan is made for double tubes and a full motorway intersection in the hills above Røldal. The Haukeli mountainpass itself is being planned a normal 2-lane road.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

Are there any news on E-134 this this week or are you just referring to the plan of SVV from 2018?








E134 Vågsli–Seljestad


Statens vegvesen skal byggje ny vegtrasé for E134 mellom Vågsli og Seljestad. E134 skal styrkast som ein av hovudvegsambanda mellom aust- og vestlandet.




www.vegvesen.no






Hansadyret said:


> Several interesting leaks from the new transportation plan today.
> 
> E6 Sørfold project will start up in the first period 2022-2027. It will replace 15 old tunnels and cost about 10B NOK.
> Gir 10 milliarder til gigantisk veiprosjekt i Nord-Norge
> 
> Nye veier is taking over more of E6 north of Trondheim.
> (+) Nye Veier tar over to E6-strekninger i Trøndelag. Får et budsjett på over 11 milliarder.
> 
> Nye Veier will build Ringeriksbanen instead of Bane Nor. I didn't expect that one.
> Nå lover regjeringen nye togspor til Hønefoss. Men det er ikke Bane Nor som får bygge dem.





54°26′S 3°24′E said:


> Åsen-Vist (54 km, Google map: Steinkjer to E6), and Selli-Asp (4 km, OpenStreetMap), to be precise. The former means that Steinkjer - Trondheim (and in extension Steinkjer-Trondheim-UIsberg (210 km)) will be mostly motorway in a not too distant future, with some notable exceptions. If only there could be some development also on Trondheim (Klett) - Orkanger, all main population centers along the shores of Trondheimsfjorden (the Trondheim Fjord) would be connected.
> 
> In the mean time, Nye Veier has met quite a lot of predictable NIMBY activity regarding E6 south of Trondheim as they have suggested some changes in the currently approved plans.
> 
> 
> Maybe because they will also will build E16 in the same project, and railway projects have chronically been way over budgets lately?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nye Veier skal bygge Ringeriksbanen
> 
> 
> Regjeringen varsler at de vil gi Nye Veier oppdraget med å bygge både Ringeriksbanen og ny E16.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.bygg.no


It appears that Nye Veier will also be given E-136 Vestnes - Dombås and E6 Dombås-Otta, but probably not to motorway standard:








(+) Nye Veier får ansvaret også for E136


Regjeringen vil i neste Nasjonale transportplan legge E136 mellom Dombås og Vestnes inn i porteføljen til Nye Veier AS.




www.vigga.no





Rv 25 Hamar-Løten will however be upgraded to motorway standard, extending the existing Løten-Elverum motorway:








Klarsignal for viktig vegstrekning: – Dette er en stor merkedag. Jeg får lyst til å sprette champagnebrusen! - Hamar Arbeiderblad


Bedre trafikkflyt, raskere kjøretid, bedre sikkerhet og større frihet er blant det politikerne trekker fram som positive sider ved at veistrekningen




www.h-a.no


----------



## berlinwroclaw

Something should be constructed on E134 from Seljestad to Notodden, because it is already planned:

1. Røldal tunnel 12,5 km – in present NTP
2. New section Saggrenda (near Kongsberg) – Elgsjø (near Notodden): approved 16 december 2020 E134 Saggrenda–Elgsjø | Statens vegvesen

From a compilation of the stakeholder requests for NTP 2022-2033 (https://www.vestlandfylke.no/globalassets/foto/fylkesveg/vedlegg-innspel-til-ntp-2022.pdf), here the some requests for E134 Røldal – Saggrenda (near Kongsberg) that need to be decided:

1. New section Røldal-Vågsli (including Dyrskar tunnel 12 km)
2. New section Elgsjø-Gvammen
3. New section(s) for Bergen Arm


----------



## threo2k

I refuse to believe this.. They told us norwegian citizens 18 years ago that by 2020 we will have a full complete profile motorway from Stavanger - Kristiansand - Oslo. So what happened?  Greedy country and greedy people.


----------



## Suburbanist

I had missed this new planning alignment for E39 north of Byrkinjelo released last November.


----------



## Suburbanist

I have a general question: why road planners here plan so few roundabouts on major intersections of national roads in the hinterland? Many junctions are extremely simple T-junctions where you wait in the middle of traffic to cross opposing traffic, while also checking for traffic coming from the other road.

Roundabouts are safe and effective, why not use more of them?


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

^^ Maybe because the truck drivers hate them? 


berlinwroclaw said:


> Something should be constructed on E134 from Seljestad to Notodden, because it is already planned:
> 
> 1. Røldal tunnel 12,5 km – in present NTP
> 2. New section Saggrenda (near Kongsberg) – Elgsjø (near Notodden): approved 16 december 2020 E134 Saggrenda–Elgsjø | Statens vegvesen
> 
> From a compilation of the stakeholder requests for NTP 2022-2033 (https://www.vestlandfylke.no/globalassets/foto/fylkesveg/vedlegg-innspel-til-ntp-2022.pdf), here the some requests for E134 Røldal – Saggrenda (near Kongsberg) that need to be decided:
> 
> 1. New section Røldal-Vågsli (including Dyrskar tunnel 12 km)
> 2. New section Elgsjø-Gvammen
> 3. New section(s) for Bergen Arm


I guess what is most likely is that the Røldal tunnel and Saggrenda - Elgsjø will be in the next NTP, but we will see in not too long.


----------



## Hansadyret

threo2k said:


> I refuse to believe this.. They told us norwegian citizens 18 years ago that by 2020 we will have a full complete profile motorway from Stavanger - Kristiansand - Oslo. So what happened?  Greedy country and greedy people.


Are you trolling? because you have no clue what you are talking about.


----------



## Suburbanist

54°26′S 3°24′E said:


> ^^ Maybe because the truck drivers hate them?


Trucks are one of the main reasons to adopt them. The turning lanes are often too narrow, so you pull right to drive forward. If you are coming from the end-road, then you cannot see well traffic beyond the truck if a truck is in the turning lane waiting.


----------



## Hansadyret

Suburbanist said:


> I had missed this new planning alignment for E39 north of Byrkinjelo released last November.


This will probably be the 4th fjord crossing built on E39. It's relatively cheap compared to other fjord crossings but will cut travel time by 1 hour.


----------



## Ingenioren

threo2k said:


> I refuse to believe this.. They told us norwegian citizens 18 years ago that by 2020 we will have a full complete profile motorway from Stavanger - Kristiansand - Oslo. So what happened?  Greedy country and greedy people.


Who "told" that? Thats even before the 2+1 opened near to Brokelandsheia so clearly it wasn't even planned to be a motorway to Kristiansand at that point in time.


----------



## berlinwroclaw

54°26′S 3°24′E said:


> ^^ Maybe because the truck drivers hate them?
> 
> I guess what is most likely is that the Røldal tunnel and Saggrenda - Elgsjø will be in the next NTP, but we will see in not too long.


Yes, on 11 May are NTP online meetings on facebook and online TV. Is it possible to hear earlier some decisions?


----------



## Hansadyret

berlinwroclaw said:


> Yes, on 11 May are NTP online meetings on facebook and online TV. Is it possible to hear earlier some decisions?


The next NTP will be presented in March. There will be many leaks before then.


----------



## Ingenioren

One noticeable thing is the constructionstart of E16 to Hønefoss in 2024 and a massive amount of funds going to E6 and E10 in Nordland.


----------



## Hansadyret

I'm starting to see light at the end of the tunnel now, if I'm looking 10 years ahead,
and lot have been done in the last 10 years.

-E16 Filefjell is done
-There are projects on E134, rv.7 and 52
-E6 is getting a massive upgrade.
-E18 is starting to look good. Most will probably be motorway by then
-Most of E39 between Stavanger and kristiansand could be done.
-Several of of the biggest fjord crossings could be under construction and nearing completion as well as E16 to Hønefoss and Arna-Stanghelle.
-much will be done on other roads as well.

There will probaby be some delays but if most goes as planned things are starting to look good, and i'm actually not that worried if AP and SP is taking over.


----------



## Hansadyret

Mathias Olsen said:


> 2. *Hordfast*: E39 Ådland-Svegatjørn. Costs: NOK 37.7 billion. According to NRK, in NTP only NOK 1 billion for coming 6 years. Pengedryss over Vestlandet: Lovar ny E16 og gigantbru på E39 til over 60 milliardar kroner


According to SVV construction on Hordfast could start in the fall of 2025 at the earliest.
(+) Utbyggingsdirektøren i veivesenet: – Kan starte på Hordfast i 2025

According to NRK the plan is to start from the south from Stord and the bridge over Langenuen.

They just started working on the regulation plan wich will be finished in the spring of 2022.
COWI vant Hordfast-kontrakt

They have been planning and doing research on the bridges for many years but there is still a lot that need to be done before any construction could start.


----------



## Rob73

Suburbanist said:


> I met an old, very well-spoken retired Norwegian oceanographic scientist with an accomplished career here in Bergen who said to me it was a huge mistake to spend all the money on these road fixed links. His argument was that as the western counties had road connections in the early 1990s that were so bad that, had most money been poured on rail projects instead of long tunnels and bridges, there would be no incentive now to keep expanding fjord crossings in the 2010s and 2020s. His assessment is that it was a missed opportunity for environmental activists: to keep the road networks underdeveloped as in the 1980s, with plenty of ferries and narrow main roads to a point where Norway would just not have an option not to invest in green rail links instead. Then changing attitudes would render mass road construction (which he particularly derises for the suburbanization of Hordaland) non-viable and keep the counties as 'highway-free' area connected to historical seafaring roots + high speed rail links. A strange take.


Those rail projects would also need long tunnels and bridges. Money wasn't spent on roads for decades, now it has become a necessity. Changing attitudes have changed back in favour of cars, electric vehicles have taken away the stigma many had of cars, now you can have the convenience of a car and the feel good factor of being environmentally friendly at the same time.


----------



## Suburbanist

Rail links cannot easily cope with the grades often seen in subsea tunnels or bridge access roads here in Norway. So even-longer tunnels would be needed. But there is very few cities with a local mass enough to sustain a lot of traffic. A rail link to Songdal or Førdo seems overkill.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

I think travel patterns along the west coast of Norway are typically regional. An argument is always to 'improve the labor market' or reduce distance and travel time to hospitals, schools and airports. These travel patterns are typically diffuse: origins and destinations scattered out all over the place, each individual bundle of traffic is small and therefor not viable for rail transport, which requires large volumes of traffic to a singular destination to be viable.


----------



## Hansadyret

More leaks. A new tunnel will be built between Voss and Lærdal . It will be 8km long but still be only the third longest tunnel between Voss and Lærdal. There is already a regulation plan for this project so building could start pretty soon i hope.









(+) Ny tunnel til 1,5 mrd. erstattar to gamle: – Det var overraskande!


Regjeringa vil byggja ny tunnel gjennom Stalheimskleiva på E16 mellom Gudvangen og Voss. Det vil bety at Sivletunnelen og Stalheimstunnelen blir erstatta.




www.sognavis.no





project:
E16 Nærøydalen | Statens vegvesen


----------



## Hansadyret

There is a lot of interesting research going on in the hordfast project to try to cut cost. There is research going on about the use of steel towers, laser welding that could cut cost by a huge amount.
There is also research going on about use of aluminium.


----------



## Tronni

Leonhard Nilsen & sønner AS (LNS) has signed the contract for the building of E6 Kvænangsfjellet. The project contains two tunnels, and will make the mountain pass safer and more predictable.

The project will also minimise the need for detours. Currently, if the pass is closed, drivers will have to make a 700 km detour via Skibotn and Finland.






Signerte med LNS om Kvænangsfjellet | Nye Veier AS







www.nyeveier.no


----------



## Mathias Olsen

Hansadyret said:


> According to SVV construction on Hordfast could start in the fall of 2025 at the earliest.
> (+) Utbyggingsdirektøren i veivesenet: – Kan starte på Hordfast i 2025
> 
> According to NRK the plan is to start from the south from Stord and the bridge over Langenuen.
> 
> They just started working on the regulation plan wich will be finished in the spring of 2022.
> COWI vant Hordfast-kontrakt
> 
> They have been planning and doing research on the bridges for many years but there is still a lot that need to be done before any construction could start.


Would be great to see the bridge over the Bjørnafjorden.

It will be exciting for me to drive over it. Unfortunately, NTP leaks (so far) say that only 1 billion is available for Hordfast, coming 6 years:



> 1 milliard til Hordfast neste seks åra
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pengedryss over Vestlandet: Lovar ny E16 og gigantbru på E39 til over 60 milliardar kroner
> 
> 
> Regjeringa vil bygge både Hordfast og ny E16 og jernbane mellom Arna og Stanghelle. Totalt vil prosjekta koste 64 milliardar kroner. Men det er uvisst når byggestarten blir.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nrk.no


Not enough for even a bridge near Jektevik, that will cost more than the double amount.
They may upgrade some road sections and come with new studies for many years before more construction will start.


----------



## Hansadyret

It's not like the governments NTP proposal will be the final result. They need support from Frp or others. Frp will put pressure on them to use even more money.
I'm sure Erna have left some openings to them so they feel they are getting some wins before supporting it.


----------



## devo

Suburbanist said:


> Rail links cannot easily cope with the grades often seen in subsea tunnels or bridge access roads here in Norway. So even-longer tunnels would be needed. But there is very few cities with a local mass enough to sustain a lot of traffic. A rail link to Songdal or Førdo seems overkill.


To further on this point: The steepest part of the new Rogfast connection will have an incline of 5%, or 50‰. This is only slightly less than the maximum of 55‰ on the Flåm line, which is Norway's steepest and among the world's steepest adhesion rail lines.
My two cents:
Having large horizontal curvatures also demands longer tunnels but this is more of an efficiency issue (higher speeds) rather than a technical issue. Rail is sometimes portrayed as "impossible" in a mountainous area (compared to road) but that's not really the biggest problem as road and rail can have very different use cases. It is more comparable if both are used for passenger traffic and this is where rail would make less sense. Unless you market the trip as an experience in itself. 
On the other hand, using a road and individual semis from point A to B, _when looking at the link between A and B in isolation_, is utter nonsense. It makes so much more sense to have one 50 or 100 car train than the alternative, again, in isolation. Taking the whole equation into account (goods never go between the same point A and B), trucks/semis make more sense. However, in the future loading could potentially be more automatic and thus reducing costs. In such a scenario semi-industrial rail links could be really slow and windy (and therefore cost effective along windy fjords) but still be worth it because you can have a high level of reliability, of course given that it is all properly built and maintained but this goes for both rail and road.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Statens Vegvesen has also stated that they don't like the 'fellesprosjekter' (joint projects) with Banenor to develop new road+rail corridors as a single project. They said that the geometry is too different between roads and rail to make economical sense. The E16 projects were mentioned (Bergen - Voss and Hønefoss - Oslo) as well as another one I can't recall from the top of my head.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

E6 Minnesund - Kolomoen (along Mjøsa), was a joint railway /motorway project. I guess SVV did not experience much synergies.


----------



## MattiG

54°26′S 3°24′E said:


> E6 Minnesund - Kolomoen (along Mjøsa), was a joint railway /motorway project. I guess SVV did not experience much synergies.


Not a big surprise.

Especially, the geometry constraints are pretty different. Typically, the minimum curve radius on a 120 km/h motorway is 1500 meters while on a 250 km/h railway it is 3500 meters or more, depending on the bank angle. The gradient of 4% is acceptable on motorways, but 1.25% is a typical maximum on railways.

Therefore, it is usually less economical to share an aligment between these two.

The next question is whether to put these channels close to each other or not. In an attempt to loosely share the alignment, the motorway and the railway probably will locate close to each other, perhaps some 0-2000 meters apart. This leaves a lot of useless areas in between: What would be the use of a strip say five kilometers long and 1000 meters wide. Putting the channel more apart does not limit the usefulness of the area in between.


----------



## Hansadyret

Hurra!
E10/rv. 85 Hålogalandsveien will be built. One of the biggest infrastructure projects ever in northern norway. 
Cost is estimeted at NOK 9,3 billion

Nå kommer Hålogalandsveien

Video | Statens vegvesen


----------



## Hansadyret

Mathias Olsen said:


> Would be great to see the bridge over the Bjørnafjorden.
> 
> It will be exciting for me to drive over it. Unfortunately, NTP leaks (so far) say that only 1 billion is available for Hordfast, coming 6 years:
> 
> Not enough for even a bridge near Jektevik, that will cost more than the double amount.
> They may upgrade some road sections and come with new studies for many years before more construction will start.


Startup money. The plan is obviously start of contruction late in the first period of NTP. Since it is a toll project there will also be financing with loans.


----------



## devo

54°26′S 3°24′E said:


> E6 Minnesund - Kolomoen (along Mjøsa), was a joint railway /motorway project. I guess SVV did not experience much synergies.


Well, they reportedly saved about 500 MNOK because of efficient mass handling. Instead of building the road or rail first and putting excess mass in a pile or vice versa until the other project gets built they could just use it more efficiently. Labour cost would also go down since you don't have to rig a large construction project twice. 
To be honest, there isn't really that much of a track record for projects like this, so it might be tricky to compare them one-to-one.

Regarding alignment and "wasted" area, the real solution is as suggested, either you put everything side by side and have the road follow the rail alignment, also sharing bridges and so on, or you would have a completely separate alignment. An example of the first is part of E 18 in Vestfold but obviously only a certain part. 
Even if you have a completely separate alignment I would still expect there to be synergies from common mass and labour pools. But the real solution would be to organise it all into one governmental agency as in Sweden (Trafikverket), so that everything is planned and designed together instead of having road and rail and even air travel "compete" like today.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

The two-month progress on the construction of the Trysfjord Bridge of E39 in southwestern Norway:

5 January 2021









16 March 2021


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

In the meantime, concrete works of the motorway construction E6 Melhus-Kvål have halted. Reason? Covid-19 border closure.


https://mobile.twitter.com/nyeveierTRD


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Maybe the project relies on foreign steel fixers (workers who install the steel rebar in concrete structures). This type of work is often done by foreign workers in the Netherlands.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

A consultancy contract for the zoning plan of E39 south of Bergen (Hordfast: Bjørnafjord crossing) has been signed with COWI:









Storkontrakt med COWI signert


– Med eit så sterkt lag er eg sikker på at dette blir eit svært vellykka reguleringsplanarbeid, seier Utbyggingsdirektør i Statens vegvesen, Kjell Inge Davik.




www.vegvesen.no





The zoning plan (_reguleringsplan_) will be completed in a year.

This is one of the most exciting projects in Europe for the next 10 years.


----------



## Hansadyret

Del.


----------



## Tronni

Kjello0 said:


> Just a small list of projects MDG wants cut or downscale if they enter government after the upcoming election...
> 
> Cut
> E6 Megården - Mørsvikbotn (E6 Sørfold)


I can understand the rest of the list considering MDG's thoughts on new and larger roads, but to cut E6 through Sørfold just seems so out of touch, even by MDG's standards. I support a possible railway line to Narvik, but upgrading E6 to stamvegstandard all the way should be an absolute minimum first.




Kjello0 said:


> Just a small list of projects MDG wants cut or downscale if they enter government after the upcoming election...
> 
> Downscaled
> Rv 36 Skjelsvik - Skyggestein


Honestly, I'm surprised this project even made the list.


----------



## devo

I'm sorry but what do you guys expect from MDG (Norway's Green Party)? I don't find these cuts particularly newsworthy or even realistic if they were to enter a government. 
MDG have been against increasing capacity when buliding new roads for as long as I can remember so this is nothing new. 

That being said one of their arguments is exactly that spending money on making more roads just safer would technically increase the number of kms of safe roads. Installing crash barriers instead of building new motorway alignments obviously gives you more kms of theoretically safer roads because the former is cheaper than the latter.
However, if you take into account the traffic volume on the roads they want to remove or downscale then it gets more complicated than just putting up crash barriers. 
Their answer is to massively increase the level of public transport (to remove the need for expanded roads).

It is all very theoretical and would you know it, there is an election just around the corner.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

You can see it as a voting advice 

MDG currently has a single seat in the Storting, even if they will enter government it doesn't mean that all of their demands will be met.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

On some of those projects construction has started...

MDG in the cabinet after this fall's election seems a bit unlikely now, as the two largest parties in the political opposition, the Labor and Center party, have said no. Despite their green logo, the Center Party (used to be called the Farmers' party and now has public funding to rural areas as their main cause), is one of the parties with the least green politics overall in Norway. However, MDG could become part of the parliamentary basis for a new cabinet, together with a few other radical parties, which could give them some leverage. It is likely that the ambitions for road construction will be reduced, I would say, as there are also a diversity of opinions in the labor party on such issues.

MDG currently only has 1 representative elected from Oslo because they were below the electoral threshold at the last election. If they are able to break the too low Norwegian threshold of 4 % in the national totals, they will be eligible for "leveling representatives". These representatives, 1 from each of the 19 electoral districts, are supposed to give the smaller parties a representation closer to the their share of the popular, national vote. Their representation may increase from 0-2 representatives to maybe 7 if they pass 4 %.

Personally, I think this threshold should be higher or the "leveling representatives" should be abolished altogether. We do not have a Dutch or Israeli situation, but there are too many parties, creating a lot of influence for small single mission parties in the middle of the political spectrum, which often causes excess spending and political instabilities. Unfortunately, there appears to be more support for lowering the threshold than increasing it.

(The 19 electoral districts used to be identical to the counties, but now several of these counties have merged. )


----------



## Hansadyret

Parliament voted to approve Hålogalandsveien OPS. Only 1 single politician voted against it. No prizes for guessing who, but they said they wanted to stop the project 2 days ago.

Voteringsoversikt


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

I guess MDG think that we should rather have high speed railway to Sortland ;-p


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

Nye Veier this week presented the zoning plan for the northernmost leg of the new motorway E6 Kvithamar-Åsen north of Stjørdal (and Trondheim), located in Levanger municipality.
The southern leg of Kvithamar-Åsen already got it's zoning plan accepted by Stjørdal municipality, and early construction work has started. The northern leg has been complex to plan due to the presence of quick clay, and 12 of the 19 kms Kvithamar-Åsen are now other planned as tunnels. The new motorway is very welcome as the current road has had a lot of accidents. Furthermore, on this section of E6 there is no parallel public road going between north and south in Norway, so alternative routes are by ferry or via Sweden. 

Animations have now been uploaded to YouTube of the plans both for Kvithamar-Åsen and 23 km E6 between Ranheim (Trondheim) and Trondheim Airport Værnes (located in Stjørdal). These are the two sections currently in the Nye Veier portfolio of E6 Trøndelag north/east of Trondheim, but the government has proposed that Nye Veier also should construct Åsen-Steinkjer, a further 50 km or so. 




Ranheim - Værnes: U/C




Kvithamar-Åsen (southern /Stjørdal leg): Plan approved, early construction. 




Kvithamar-Åsen (northern /Levanger leg): Plan for approval


----------



## Tronni

Nye Veier has released an animation of the E39 stretch between Ålgård and Bue. The plan has two alternatives, and has to be approved by the municipalities of Bjerkreim and Gjesdal before it's put out on public hearing. The project consists of 13,4 kilometres of motorway with a 110 km/h speed limit, and three interchanges located at Bollestad, Skurve and Bue.


----------



## Hansadyret

Obrascón Huarte Lain won the motorway project E6 Storhove-Øyer. I don't think the contractor has done anything in Norway before but i understand it's a respected company.

Spanske Obrascón Huarte Lain er valgt for ny E6 Storhove-Øyer


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

The Storting (Norwegian parliament) today opened for trials with 120 km/h speed limit on motorways. This is a modest speed compared with many countries, but not that long ago the maximum speed in Norway was 90 km/h. I believe the criteria for allowing 120 km/h will be strict, however, so the number of eligible sections will probably be limited.


----------



## abedidabedu

Regjeringa have found 5 billion NOK today in NTP towards upgrading the E14 highway between Stjørdal and Storlien (Sweden). It has been proposed to give this project to Nye Veier to increase the road standard and decrease the building time. Nye Veier wants to build 100km/h motorway between Stjørdal and Hegra (10km), two-lane 90km/h with meddian barrier between Hegra and Meråker (38km), and continue like today with two-lane 80km/h between Meråker to Storlien (19km).

This road is the main connection between the county of Trøndelag and Sweden. The standard today is not great with many small curves and high danger for rockfall and landslides. The Stjørdal-Hegra part has problems with the capasity, and the Hegra-Meråker part has problems with safety and reliability. The road is important for freight, as well as for the local inhabitants in Stjørdalsdalføre (Stjørdal valley).









Regjeringspartiene vil ha E14 inn i Nasjonal transportplan


Vil bruke 5 milliarder på E14 mellom Stjørdal og Storlien og anbefaler at den tas inn i Nye Veiers portefølje.




www.adressa.no


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

These are great news. For Trøndelag, it would be even better news if they could do something about E39 Klett - Harangen, however, in particular the new but seriously flawed Klett E6 / E39 intersection. But I guess there may be another chance in four years....

Hegra, most famous for its fortress where 250 volunteers held Wehrmacht abay between April 15 and May 5th. Only 6 Norwegian soldiers died under the entire battle, but the food had run outw, no new supplies were coming in and there was no other regular military resistance in South Norway by May 5th.








Battle of Hegra Fortress - Wikipedia







en.m.wikipedia.org


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Hansadyret said:


> Obrascón Huarte Lain won the motorway project E6 Storhove-Øyer. I don't think the contractor has done anything in Norway before but i understand it's a respected company.


From what I've found they won a big contract for the Ski station as part of the Follobanen project, but that seems to be their first Norwegian project.

Spain has a number of construction giants, which get most of their revenue overseas (especially since the 2008-2009 crisis). Unlike most Italian companies, they seem to be doing a good job.


----------



## Hansadyret

Strynefjellstunnelen is back in the first period of the transport plan. This is a long tunnel over 16km with a 7km arm to Geiranger. Ny Strynefjellstunnel inne på NTP: – Tiår med dårlege tunnelar er snart over!

Also E39 Vågsbotn-Klauvaneset is in after lots of local pressure.
Mot flertall for ny E39 i Åsane: – Akkurat nå er jeg superglad


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

abedidabedu said:


> Regjeringa have found 5 billion NOK today in NTP towards upgrading the E14 highway between Stjørdal and Storlien (Sweden). It has been proposed to give this project to Nye Veier to increase the road standard and decrease the building time. Nye Veier wants to build 100km/h motorway between Stjørdal and Hegra (10km), two-lane 90km/h with meddian barrier between Hegra and Meråker (38km), and continue like today with two-lane 80km/h between Meråker to Storlien (19km).
> 
> This road is the main connection between the county of Trøndelag and Sweden. The standard today is not great with many small curves and high danger for rockfall and landslides. The Stjørdal-Hegra part has problems with the capasity, and the Hegra-Meråker part has problems with safety and reliability. The road is important for freight, as well as for the local inhabitants in Stjørdalsdalføre (Stjørdal valley).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Regjeringspartiene vil ha E14 inn i Nasjonal transportplan
> 
> 
> Vil bruke 5 milliarder på E14 mellom Stjørdal og Storlien og anbefaler at den tas inn i Nye Veiers portefølje.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.adressa.no


Arguably the most problematic part of E14 is its first kilometers to the west. Basically, it is an urban two - lane street going through the southern edge of Stjørdal town center, with four roundabouts, a couple of other at-grade intersections, businesses and residential housing. The most sensible thing would maybe to reroute E14 further south such that it run next to the airport, but then quite a few residential houses have to go, or the military (which control this part of the airport) has to release some area, and neither solution would be easy. Also, the E6/E14 intersection is a roundabout, and when Nye Veier has completed its current E6 portfolio in Trøndelag, this would be one of only two at-grade intersection on the 218 km E6 between Ulsberg and Steinkjer. The other at-grade intersection is also a roundabout in Stjørdal.

I wonder whether these issues will be addressed at all, or if they only improve E14 east of Stjørdal town center (also called Stjørdalshalsen) , as the urban part is seen too expensive and political difficult to fix. From what little has been published by e.g. Nye Veier, it appears that the latter is true, and only E14 east of the roundabout at the right in map below will be looked at now .








E14 runs from west to east through Stjørdal town center, E6 to the west (left), Trondheim airport to the south (lower half).


----------



## Tronni

Both roundabouts on E6 could be rebuilt with tunnels underneath like Sandslikrysset on rv. 580 in Bergen or Ørebekk-krysset on rv. 110 in Fredrikstad.


----------



## Tronni

Also, the government has promised to give funds to E134 Bakka - Solheim in the new transport plan.

Årelang tunnelfrustrasjon snudd til glede – yrkessjåførane blir lova tunnelen dei har venta på (last paragraph)

The project is ca. 37 kilometres long, and will be a mix between separated and non-separated directions and junctions.


----------



## Hansadyret

If i'm counting right, There now seem to be 11 projects either started or will start up between 2022-27 on E39 between Stavanger and Trondheim if things go as planned.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

The negotiation between the minority government and the progress party on the revision of the annual budget has completed. Among other things, it was decided to terminate the tolls on the following projects:

Fv 255 Jørstad - Segelstad bru (Gausdal/Lillehammer, Innlandet)
E6/E18 Østfoldpakken (Østfold, Viken)
Fv 311 Presterødbakken (Tønsberg, Vestfold og Telemark)
Fv 34 Grime-Vesleelva (Dokka-Gjøvik, Innlandet)
T-forbindelsen (Karmøy-Tysvær-Haugesund, Rogaland)
Finnfast (Finnøy-Rennesøy, Rogaland)

Further, it was decided to fund the expansion of E6 at the Sluppen interchange in Trondheim. As discussed previously in here, there are only through lane for E6 in each direction here. After this expansion, and the ongoing widening of E6 Ranheim-Værnes, the entire length of E6 through Trondheim will have at least 2+2 lanes. The funding needed for the Sluppen fix was minor, however (36 MNOK or about 3.6 M€), so it is a bit strange that this was on the summary of the agreement in the national news, but then I see that also that another item of only 500 kNOK was on that list....


----------



## abedidabedu

54°26′S 3°24′E said:


> Arguably the most problematic part of E14 is its first kilometers to the west. Basically, it is an urban two - lane street going through the southern edge of Stjørdal town center, with four roundabouts, a couple of other at-grade intersections, businesses and residential housing. The most sensible thing would maybe to reroute E14 further south such that it run next to the airport, but then quite a few residential houses have to go, or the military (which control this part of the airport) has to release some area, and neither solution would be easy. Also, the E6/E14 intersection is a roundabout, and when Nye Veier has completed its current E6 portfolio in Trøndelag, this would be one of only two at-grade intersection on the 218 km E6 between Ulsberg and Steinkjer. The other at-grade intersection is also a roundabout in Stjørdal.
> 
> I wonder whether these issues will be addressed at all, or if they only improve E14 east of Stjørdal town center (also called Stjørdalshalsen) , as the urban part is seen too expensive and political difficult to fix. From what little has been published by e.g. Nye Veier, it appears that the latter is true, and only E14 east of the roundabout at the right in map below will be looked at now .
> View attachment 1600301
> 
> E14 runs from west to east through Stjørdal town center, E6 to the west (left), Trondheim airport to the south (lower half).


Nye Veier has talked about the two E6 roundabouts on their public meetings. Their argument is that Stjørdal is a big town and most of the traffic on E6 has Stjørdal or E14 as the destination. The aadt on E6 south of town is 22 000, 11 000 on E6 north of town, and 18 000 on E14. They say this makes it hard to justify investing money in underpasses when most of the traffic will not use them. 

It is worse with E14 where there is no plans for moving the road south of the airport. This is because it would cut through a lot of agricultural land. The plan is to expand the current urban road into 4 lanes and build a 4th roundabout where one of the T-intersections are today.



http://imgur.com/o908aH2


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

I assume that a lot of the E14 traffic Stjørdal-Hegra originates from Stjørdal, so probably a bypass south of the airport / river would only catch a fraction of the traffic. But 5 roundabouts (including the E6/14 one) to get through the town of Stjørdal should not be necessary, it would be better to remove some of the intersection and let the local road handle more of the local traffic, IMO.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

Spring has finally arrived to the northernmost part of Norway, and with it came flooding. E45 is closed in upper Alta, Finnmark, and a picture of E6 between Lakselv and Tana is provided below.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1269953245901979649


----------



## ChrisZwolle

What is happening in Oslo with the Green Party's Lan Marie Berg? Apparently the whole city council resigned after a vote of no-confidence against Berg gained a majority. She's the councillor for transport (quite anti-car of course). But I don't understand what is driving the issue.


----------



## Suburbanist

ChrisZwolle said:


> What is happening in Oslo with the Green Party's Lan Marie Berg? Apparently the whole city council resigned after a vote of no-confidence against Berg gained a majority. She's the councillor for transport (quite anti-car of course). But I don't understand what is driving the issue.


There is a budget scandal about water management projects supposed to cost NOK 12 billion and now reaching NOK 17. I don't know all details of her involvement in the mismanagement. It is not about criminality but outrageous project managerial negligence and clearly something the councilor wanted to blame on contractors.


----------



## Tronni

The city council decided that Berg didn't follow up on her duty to provide information about the project/budget crack. The city council did not receive the information before May 20th (?) after an external quality assurance, even though VAV (Vann- og avløpsetaten) had known about it for a few months already without sharing too much (or any?) information about it.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

6 month progress on the E39 Trysfjord Bridge in Southwestern Norway.


----------



## Tronni

The zoning plan for E18 Bamble - Tvedestrand (Dørdal - Rødmyr) has been released to the public for inspection. 





__





Offentlig ettersyn av planforslaget | Nye Veier AS







www.nyeveier.no





This stretch of E18 will be a four lane motorway with a 110 km/h speed limit. It will pass through the municipalities of Bamble, Kragerø, Risør, Gjerstad, Vegårshei and Tvedestrand. There will be four dumbbell interchanges; two in Kragerø, one in Gjerstad and one in Risør. 

The western and eastern sections will be built first, with construction (hopefully) starting in 2022. The middle section through Gjerstad already has motortrafikkvei-standard, and will be built later.


----------



## Tronni

Today, toll collection was removed from these projects:

Fv 255 Jørstad - Segelstad bru (Gausdal/Lillehammer, Innlandet)
E6/E18 Østfoldpakken (Østfold, Viken)
Fv 311 Presterødbakken (Tønsberg, Vestfold og Telemark)
Fv 34 Grime-Vesleelva (Dokka-Gjøvik, Innlandet)
T-forbindelsen (Karmøy-Tysvær-Haugesund, Rogaland)
Finnfast (Finnøy-Rennesøy, Rogaland)









I dag er seks bomprosjekt fjerna – denne bussen feira ved midnatt







www.nrk.no


----------



## Hansadyret

Nye Veier is cancelling the contract for a new bridge over Mjøsa, to expensive they say. They are now contemplating dividing the contract into several smaller ones.

Det ble for dyrt: Nye Veier avbestiller kontrakten for E6 Moelv-Roterud


----------



## ChrisZwolle

This was a JV between Besix and Rizzani de Eccher. 

Rizzani de Eccher does not have a good portfolio of projects in Europe outside of Italy. The writing's on the wall with Italian construction companies: they almost all fail or do not meet deadlines. There are ample examples in the eastern EU, but also Scandinavia.


----------



## Pitchoune

A bit weird that Besix considered teaming with an unreliable company (in the case Rizzani de Eccher is indeed unreliable, there might be other reasons, a project being expensive is a very good one).


----------



## Hansadyret

The state is now starting the concept study of that E134 arm to Bergen. Decades late.
KVU for E134 – Hordalandsdiagonalen


----------



## berlinwroclaw

Hansadyret said:


> The state is now starting the concept study of that E134 arm to Bergen. Decades late.
> KVU for E134 – Hordalandsdiagonalen


Yes. Sad to notice that railroad already made a great concept study of Olso-Bergen via Haukeli. Statens vegvesen has validated it with the conclusion they did a great job and has taken complete Jondal bridge according to what railroad required.
Why should you do things that can be decided easy, when it is also possible to do it in a long and difficult way?
With this tempo, maybe your grandchildren will see realisation of this not unimportant road improvement, isn't it?


----------



## ChrisZwolle

The toll system in Kristiansand will be reintroduced on 1 September: 









Gjeninnføring av bompener i Kristiansand fra 01.09.21 | Ferde.no


Kunngjøring: Den 01.09.21 gjeninnføres det bompengeinnkreving i Kristiansand, samt det innføres betaling for miljødifferensierte kjøretøy.



ferde.no





The toll rate is 24 NOK during rush hour and 16 NOK outside rush hour. EVs pay 50%. 

I wonder though if 'rush hour' is a bit too generously defined. Does the evening rush hour in a small city like that really start at 14:30 hours?


----------



## Rob73

ChrisZwolle said:


> The toll system in Kristiansand will be reintroduced on 1 September:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gjeninnføring av bompener i Kristiansand fra 01.09.21 | Ferde.no
> 
> 
> Kunngjøring: Den 01.09.21 gjeninnføres det bompengeinnkreving i Kristiansand, samt det innføres betaling for miljødifferensierte kjøretøy.
> 
> 
> 
> ferde.no
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The toll rate is 24 NOK during rush hour and 16 NOK outside rush hour. EVs pay 50%.
> 
> I wonder though if 'rush hour' is a bit too generously defined. Does the evening rush hour in a small city like that really start at 14:30 hours?


what’s the reason for the reintroduction?


----------



## Suburbanist

ChrisZwolle said:


> The toll system in Kristiansand will be reintroduced on 1 September:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gjeninnføring av bompener i Kristiansand fra 01.09.21 | Ferde.no
> 
> 
> Kunngjøring: Den 01.09.21 gjeninnføres det bompengeinnkreving i Kristiansand, samt det innføres betaling for miljødifferensierte kjøretøy.
> 
> 
> 
> ferde.no
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder though if 'rush hour' is a bit too generously defined. Does the evening rush hour in a small city like that really start at 14:30 hours?


Yes, because the kindergartens start releasing children at 15.00 and many part time jobs office based also end around that time as well. Although 14.30 is pushing earlier.


----------



## devo

Rob73 said:


> what’s the reason for the reintroduction?


Samferdselspakke for Kristiansandsregionen, Fase 2 or basically E 39 Gartnerløkka–Kolsdalen.
A project which was proposed all the way back in August 2013 and then approved in 2015... until _someone_ thought it would be a good idea to do a politics on all the formal steps that appear after plan approval. (Like the KS2-process which is basically just making sure the numbers check out, not an opportunity to cancel the whole thing). Oh and the same someone treated it like nothing at all was approved or decided, maybe because they were in the minority, and maybe there was a local election. And they had friends in high places (government), who helped delay it. 
And so now the project is finally started after a multi-year delay and lots of hassle over absolutely nothing.
I mean the project isn't perfect, there should have been a tunnel instead (which by the way was approved way back in 2005 but was canceled because... reasons). 
But my point is, if you are against something, make your voice heard _before_ the plan is democratically voted through.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

A vehicle fire occurred in the Oslofjord Tunnel on Monday. It was announced that the tunnel would remain closed until 9 August, however it has now been extended to 17 August.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1423230053073055747


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

Suburbanist said:


> Yes, because the kindergartens start releasing children at 15.00 and many part time jobs office based also end around that time as well. Although 14.30 is pushing earlier.


During summer, core working hoursis often 9 - 1430 for people with flexible but full working time. And on Friday rush hour starts earlier than the rest of the week.


----------



## Ingenioren

Where the under construction Nordøyvegen starts at the mainland:
2021-08-27_03-40-39 by André Wauthier, on Flickr

2021-08-27_03-41-24 by André Wauthier, on Flickr


----------



## Tronni

AS Birkeland Entreprenørforretning has started construction on E39 between Myrmel and Lunde south of Førde.









I gang med 2,5 års vegarbeid på E39 mellom Førde og Lavik


Rigging og forberedende arbeider til byggingen av den 4 km lange strekninga på E39 mellom Myrmel-Lunde er i gang.




www.veier24.no





The project will replace 3,7 kilometres of narrow and winding road, and includes a 1 kilometre tunnel under some farms.


----------



## Hansadyret

Also construction on E6 Kvænangsfjellet started this week. This is an important mountain pass in northern Norway.
Markerte oppstart på Kvænangsfjellet | Nye Veier AS


----------



## Rob73

Tronni said:


> Yesterday, construction officially started on E39 Lønset - Hjelset.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Første spadetak på ny E39 Lønset-Hjelset
> 
> 
> Mandag tok leder i Transport- og kommunikasjonskomiteen Helge Orten første spadetak for ny E39 Lønset-Hjelset ved Molde.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.veier24.no


its almost like a motorway. Any idea when they will contract the missing section from Hjelset to Batnfjord?


----------



## ChrisZwolle

_E39 Lønset-Hjelset omfatter bygging av 9,3 km ny 2/3-feltsveg med midtdeler mellom Lønset og Hjelset i Molde kommune. Vegen bygges avkjørselsfri og for fartsgrense 90 km/t. _

Imho this doesn't sound like 'almost a motorway'. I believe it was originally planned as a four lane road.


----------



## Rob73

ChrisZwolle said:


> _E39 Lønset-Hjelset omfatter bygging av 9,3 km ny 2/3-feltsveg med midtdeler mellom Lønset og Hjelset i Molde kommune. Vegen bygges avkjørselsfri og for fartsgrense 90 km/t. _
> 
> Imho this doesn't sound like 'almost a motorway'. I believe it was originally planned as a four lane road.


it has a 90kph speed limit, it’s a divided road with most of it being 2+1, it’s as close to a motor way as you can get in this part of Norway.

I guess most of these projects have been rushed through, if they aren’t contracted now the next AP govt will stop anything not already started.


----------



## Tronni

Rob73 said:


> its almost like a motorway. Any idea when they will contract the missing section from Hjelset to Batnfjord?











Ferjefri E39


En utbedret og ferjefri E39 vil redusere reisetiden og knytte byene på Vestlandet tettere sammen.




www.vegvesen.no












Story Map Journal


This story map was created with the Story Map Journal application in ArcGIS Online.




vegvesen.maps.arcgis.com





The interactive map says that this stretch is still at the kommunedelplan stage. I don't think this will change anytime soon.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

Klett-Thamshavn: "Ferdig" Not sure whether I should cry or laugh.


----------



## Tronni

With the exception of Klettkrysset and the lack of a median, I don't see the problem with that section.


----------



## Rob73

Tronni said:


> Ferjefri E39
> 
> 
> En utbedret og ferjefri E39 vil redusere reisetiden og knytte byene på Vestlandet tettere sammen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.vegvesen.no
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Story Map Journal
> 
> 
> This story map was created with the Story Map Journal application in ArcGIS Online.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> vegvesen.maps.arcgis.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The interactive map says that this stretch is still at the kommunedelplan stage. I don't think this will change anytime soon.


i think it’s supposed to be done before the hospital opens.


----------



## Hansadyret

Tronni said:


> The interactive map says that this stretch is still at the kommunedelplan stage. I don't think this will change anytime soon.


This interactive map doesn't look updated for a while.


----------



## Hansadyret

Rob73 said:


> I guess most of these projects have been rushed through, if they aren’t contracted now the next AP govt will stop anything not already started.


Don't be to dramatic. Both AP and SP and even SV want many of these roads built. SV is just against these big motorway-projects but they will be the smallest party in a new government.


----------



## Tronni

Rob73 said:


> i think it’s supposed to be done before the hospital opens.


The hospital is set to open in 2025. I'm not sure it'll be ready by then.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

Tronni said:


> With the exception of Klettkrysset and the lack of a median, I don't see the problem with that section.


Those are both pretty major issues, however. Fixing the Klett mess alone would cost 400 MNOK according to SVV. A lot of the section consists of tunnels. A median is in practice not possible without dualing these, which probably will be needed to fulfill the tunnel directive anyway. 

E39 has roughly 14 000 AADT close to Klett and 10 000 close to Thamshavn, making this a dangerous road. According to current standards, it should have been built as a motorway.


----------



## Hansadyret

LNS won E6 Svenningelv-Lien. Construction will begin at the start of 2022. This is part of the E6 Helgeland project.
LNS skal bygge ny E6 på Helgeland


----------



## Hansadyret

Only 3 contractors want to build Hålogalandsvegen. Skanska Norge, italienske ASASTM S.p.A. og polske Gulermak 
I will not be surprised if a new government cancels the competition and ask SVV to devide the project into smaller contracts. 
AP,SP,SV and norwegian construction companies is critical of these big PPP-projects. They were already negative to Sotrasambandet where not a single norwegian contractor took part because of the size of the contract but It's to late to do anything with Sotrasambandet where a contract will be signed this month.

Bare ett norsk entreprenørselskap med i kampen om OPS-prosjektet i nord til 18 milliarder


----------



## Tronni

54°26′S 3°24′E said:


> Those are both pretty major issues, however. Fixing the Klett mess alone would cost 400 MNOK according to SVV. A lot of the section consists of tunnels. A median is in practice not possible without dualing these, which probably will be needed to fulfill the tunnel directive anyway.
> 
> E39 has roughly 14 000 AADT close to Klett and 10 000 close to Thamshavn, making this a dangerous road. According to current standards, it should have been built as a motorway.


Ah, I see.

-----------------

Brødrene Dokken started construction on E16 Turtnes - Øye today. 3,2 kilometres of road will be widened to 8,5 metres eastwards from Øye, where the project Øye - Eidsbru (Rødølstunnelen) opened last year.









Enda mer vei skal bli bedre i Valdres: Da bærer det løs med E16 Turtnes-Øye


Nå skal Brødrene Dokken i gang med ytterligere 3,2 kilometer.




www.veier24.no


----------



## Hansadyret

Surprise!
SVV has to ask for more money because of higher costs for Sotrasambandet. 
SVV still say the winner will be announced in a month but the contract wonth be signed before desember at the earliest. I was wrong when i wrote the contract would be signed this month, the plan was just to announce the winner, but for now it looks like construction can start in the middle of 2022 at the earliest.

Ny kostnadssmell rammer Sotrasambandet: – Det er et betydelig beløp. Det handler om milliarder.


----------



## MattiG

Hansadyret said:


> Surprise!
> SVV has to ask for more money because of higher costs for Sotrasambandet.
> SVV still say the winner will be announced in a month but the contract wonth be signed before desember at the earliest. I was wrong when i wrote the contract would be signed this month, the plan was just to announce the winner, but for now it looks like construction can start in the middle of 2022 at the earliest.
> 
> Ny kostnadssmell rammer Sotrasambandet: – Det er et betydelig beløp. Det handler om milliarder.


So, first they agree on the cost frame.

Then, after agreeing on the cost frame, they send out the requests for a proposal asking what the cost would be.

Yes?


----------



## Hansadyret

deleted


----------



## Hansadyret

MattiG said:


> So, first they agree on the cost frame.
> 
> Then, after agreeing on the cost frame, they send out the requests for a proposal asking what the cost would be.
> 
> Yes?


SVV have a cost limit for the project agreed with the national government. This is a huge contract worth 1.5 billion Euro. SVV now say they can not negotiate the cost further down anymore with the contractors and will ask the government to increase the budget. The minister of transportation is saying they will increase the budget in connection with the state budget later this year.


----------



## MattiG

Hansadyret said:


> SVV have a cost limit for the project agreed with the national government. This is a huge contract worth 1.5 billion Euro. SVV now say they can not negotiate the cost further down anymore with the contractors and will ask the government to increase the budget. The minister of transportation is saying they will increase the budget in connection with the state budget later this year.


I believe, the government-agreed cost limit is public information? So, the strategy of the candidates is to set the price as close to the limit as possible, but not higher than the competitors. This sort of gambling usually tend to converge to a price tag which is very close to the original limit.


----------



## Hansadyret

MattiG said:


> I believe, the government-agreed cost limit is public information? So, the strategy of the candidates is to set the price as close to the limit as possible, but not higher than the competitors. This sort of gambling usually tend to converge to a price tag which is very close to the original limit.


It's not always the contractor with the lowest original bid win the contract. There is also negotiations and prize is just one but important part of it.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Large contracts often use multiple criteria, to select the offer with the best value, which is not necessarily the lowest bid. In fact the lowest bid is frequently unrealistic or has a high risk of running into problems. There are some cowboys on the market, we've seen this with the Italian and Chinese bids across Europe.


----------



## Tronni

The kommunedelplan for E16/E39 Arna - Vågsbotn - Klauvaneset is now on public hearing until October 19th. 

In the plan there are 17 different alignments. Vegvesenet first preferred the alternative S3-N1, but they have now changed it to S1a-N1.

The old preferred alternative S3-N1:





The new preferred alternative S1a-N1:


----------



## Hansadyret

I used to live in Vågsbotn as a little kid. My parents rented an apartment in one of the small farms located in the middle of that planned interchange.
The future light rail line to åsane is also planned to end in Vågsbotn.


----------



## Hansadyret

The winner of Sotrasambandet: Sotra Link (FCC Construcción S.A., Salini Impregilo S.p.A., SK Engineering & Construction Co. Ltd. og Macquarie Corporate Holdings Pty Limited.)
The contract is worth almost 2 Billion Euro.
Sotrasambandet: Utenlandsk konsortium sikret seg kontrakten på 19,8 milliarder


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Salini Impregilo... they have the worst track record in Central Europe...


----------



## g.spinoza

ChrisZwolle said:


> Salini Impregilo... they have the worst track record in Central Europe...


In Italy they have a good reputation. The new Genoa bridge is theirs.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

I don't understand why Italian construction companies have such a poor track record abroad. Many don't meet deadlines or get their contacts terminated. This issue is not nearly as bad with Spanish or French contractors.


----------



## Lombat

In Poland, each of Salini contracts was heavily delayed, and finally they were kicked out from all of them.


----------



## Hansadyret

ChrisZwolle said:


> Salini Impregilo... they have the worst track record in Central Europe...


I think they are just a part owner (10%) of the Sotra Link PPP-company.
According to the veier24 article also Norconsult, Multiconsult, PINI (switzerland), Intertoll (Hungary), and i'm sure more norwegian subcontractors will also be part of the project.


----------



## g.spinoza

Lombat said:


> In Poland, each of Salini contracts was heavily delayed, and finally they were kicked out from all of them.


According to this article (in Italian), Salini Impregilo as well as other Italian construction companies like Toto and Pizzarotti left (weren't "kicked out") after polish government refused to pay more after a substantial raise (30%) in the prices of the materials.

I don't know if the contracts were such that the companies were entitled to have this compensations... But starting stating "they are unable to work" doesn't tell the right story.









Perché la Polonia fa sbandare Salini Impregilo, Toto e Pizzarotti


La Polonia non è un Paese per costruttori. Almeno non per quelli italiani, praticamente tutti alle prese con una serie di grane



www.startmag.it


----------



## Lombat

g.spinoza said:


> I don't know if the contracts were such that the companies were entitled to have this compensations... But starting stating "they are unable to work" doesn't tell the right story.


Ad the beginning of this story, Salini won a couple of tenders with an extremely low prices, because they didn't count a couple of risks, and didn't know the lokal market.
Our GDDKiA (gov agency of high speed roads) treats every companies the same way, and Salini is the only company that was kicked out (or left) from literally every contracts that it was in.
But mayby enough of situation in Poland, in part it is the fault of our system...

They are not alone in this contract so it should be fine, i hope.


----------



## MattiG

Lombat said:


> Ad the beginning of this story, Salini won a couple of tenders with an extremely low prices, because they didn't count a couple of risks, and didn't know the lokal market.
> Our GDDKiA (gov agency of high speed roads) treats every companies the same way, and Salini is the only company that was kicked out (or left) from literally every contracts that it was in.
> But mayby enough of situation in Poland, in part it is the fault of our system...
> 
> They are not alone in this contract so it should be fine, i hope.


Sounds something similar to the case of the nuclear power plant at Olkiluoto, Finland. The power company TVO placed an order to a consortium of Areva from France and Siemens from Germany to build a new power plant by 2009. Since 2005 when the works started, a delay has been announced 17 times. The current estimate for the Go Live for production is 2023.

It was the Areva's responsibility to build the reactor while Siemens was responsible for the turbines. The delay from the Siemens side was about one year only, and Siemens withdrew themselves off the consortium in 2009 to protect their reputation.

It has been a big surprise to the Frenchmen that the agreements are interpreted literally in the northern Europe, and nuclear safety authority in Finland follows the book strictly. Areva aimed to follow business principles which are totally no-no in Finland: Make a cheap bid, and start real price negotiations after the sign off the contract. The client, TVO, has been rock solid saying they have placed an order for a turnkey plant for a fixed price. The case has been a financial disaster to the Areva backed up by the French government. The French government has been forced to give their support, because taking another path would have lead to an end of the French nuclear business.


----------



## Lombat

MattiG said:


> Sounds something similar to the case of the nuclear power plant at Olkiluoto, Finland. The power company TVO placed an order to a consortium of Areva from France and Siemens from Germany to build a new power plant by 2009. Since 2005 when the works started, a delay has been announced 17 times. The current estimate for the Go Live for production is 2023.


In part yes, but nuclear power plants are far more complex than roads.
And Olkiluoto is a FOAK (First of a Kind).
FOAK's are always far more expensive than planned, because during the first construction there are a lot of changes to be done in the design. It always costs money and time.
This is also the main reason for many delays.
Areva's bad decision was to build FOAK of EPR not in France. Flamanville also has problems like this.
Lastly i read that Olkiluoto Goes Live in June 2022.

Is there a thread about energy in Finnland, or about energy in Nordic & Baltic?


----------



## MattiG

Lombat said:


> In part yes, but nuclear power plants are far more complex than roads.
> And Olkiluoto is a FOAK (First of a Kind).
> FOAK's are always far more expensive than planned, because during the first construction there are a lot of changes to be done in the design. It always costs money and time.
> This is also the main reason for many delays.
> Areva's bad decision was to build FOAK of EPR not in France. Flamanville also has problems like this.
> Lastly i read that Olkiluoto Goes Live in June 2022.
> 
> Is there a thread about energy in Finnland, or about energy in Nordic & Baltic?


Sure roads and power plants are different things but it was not my point. The point is that ways of doing infrastructure business seem to very diffent in the South and the North. This potentially causes cultural clashes between the clients and the vendors.


----------



## Hansadyret

Those who don't understand norwegian can read more about the Sotra Link contract and project here:

Norway awards biggest ever road contract to Sotra Link consortium - Global Construction Review


----------



## ChrisZwolle

A 7 kilometer segment of the E39 motorway in Mandal will open to traffic six months ahead of schedule, in December 2021 instead of mid 2022. This project only started construction last year, this was the first 'total contract' that also included that the contractor was responsible for getting all the permits. Apparently to great success, under 2 years of construction time.





__





Veiåpning på E 39 seks måneder foran skjema | Nye Veier AS







www.nyeveier.no


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Hansadyret said:


> I think they are just a part owner (10%) of the Sotra Link PPP-company.


Webuild / Salini Impregilo will be the primary contractor for this project, i.e. they will execute the actual construction.

Macquarie is an Australian financial services group that constitutes 70% of the Sotra Link consortium, however they do not do any construction themselves. Engineering is provided by the Korean SK engineering, as far as I know they are a capable engineering firm, they have done numerous large-scale projects worldwide.


----------



## Ingenioren

So simple it would be to just put up a bitcoin address no?


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Nye Veier has expanded its portfolio with 10 new roads:


E6 Otta–Dombås
E6 Åsen–Steinkjer
E6 Selli–Asp
E6 Sørelva–Borkamo
E6 Nordkjosbotn–Hatteng
E6 Olderdalen–Langslett
E136 Dombås–Vestnes
Rv. 4 Hunndalen–Mjøsbrua
Rv. 13 Skare–Sogndal
Rv. 25 Hamar (E6)–Løten









Nye Veier får overført 10 nye strekningar


No er kontrakten med selskapet signert, slik at dei har masse å gjere i åra som kjem, seier Hareide.




www.regjeringen.no


----------



## Rob73

E136 Dombas-Vestnes is needed, it also kills of the stupidity that is Romsdals Aksen.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

Kolomoen-Dombås-Vestnes becomes the first truly continuous cross-regional Nye Veier section (as Langangen-Stavanger and Kolomoen-Steinkjer are disjoint).

I am a bit disappointed that E14 is not included, though, as I understood it as if that was the recommendation from the Storting when discussing the national transport plan.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

After about a week of preliminary talks, it is now clear that the next cabinet of Norway will be formed by Labour and the Centre Party (SP). I guess the more left-wing SV saw that they could not find enough common ground with the SP and rather would sit outside the government and (continue to) pick up voters from the radical wing of Labor than being seen as responsible for the politics of SP, which is one of the strongest proponents for bussiness as usual (or going back to how things were 10-50 years ago) among the Norwegian parties, including on environmental politics.

In principle the new minority government will be free to seek support both to the left or right, depending on the issue at hand. In practice, however, it needs to negotiate a deal with the left on the state budget, as going to the right would be too politically costly for Labor. According to the rumors, the main cause of the break with in the cabinet talks was petroleum politics, where SV wants to halt any new explorations, whereas the other two parties want to continue developing the industry.

Regarding highway politics, I fear that it will be easier for the new government to appease SV by reducing the ambitions on new motorways and urban roads (short-term saving of government expenditures) than reducing petroleum offshore activities (which would have meant a decline in government revenues).


----------



## Hansadyret

I think this was the best that could happen with the election result we got. Now the new government can seek support from either side. I think AP and SP will just offer SV things like cheaper dental care and tax the rich more for them to support the budget. I don't think much will change when it comes to building of roads. Many of these road-projects are pushed and supported by local AP- and SP-politicians and they risk losing local support if they stop any of these planned projects.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

That is kind of exactly what I fear with Labor and, in particular, SP politicians in charge: Back to even more micro-management of national road funding based on local pressure. The loser will then be a coherent and consistent development of the national main corridors.


----------



## Hansadyret

54°26′S 3°24′E said:


> That is kind of exactly what I fear with Labor and, in particular, SP politicians in charge: Back to even more micro-management of national road funding based on local pressure. The loser will then be a coherent and consistent development of the national main corridors.


Much of the local pressure and demand is to develop the national main corridors, also in municipalities far outside the cities. Both parties want to keep Nye Veier and i think also SVV has gotten better because of the competition, wich is good for the coming years.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

Hansadyret said:


> Much of the local pressure and demand is to develop the national main corridors, also in municipalities far outside the cities.


Or more commonly, to bring the main road to them through unnatural alignments. This is the reason why we have a national road E69 ending at a wilderness cliff (connected to the mainland through a hugely expensive tunnel), E6 still runs via Dombås, we got E16 via Lærdal (and multiple other "main" roads Oslo-Bergen), and not least that we have the meandering routing of E39 Bergen-Ålesund which is coastal in the name only. Or, that the former county of Sogn og Fjordane has one of the country's highest density of national roads although the density of people and through traffic are among the lowest. Can someone for instance explain to me why there are two national roads between the metropolis of Hjelle and Volda? Or three national roads crossing Sognefjorden?

Both Labor and SP have said that the mandate of Nye Veier should change, and personally I am quite concerned what that would mean.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

Funny to see some construction on my daily (bike) commute. The Sluppen area has been a serious bottleneck of Trondheim for many decades, and the new bridge across Nidelven and the associated road system is very much needed. 

Unfortunately, the latter will still be underdimensioned, as the Rv 706 along the west side of the river continues being 2—lane road. Construction of the planned dual tunnels to the western suburbs directly from the bridge will alleviate the situation somewhat, but they are just constructing the portals, to cause less disruption of a next construction phase, and not least to anchor the new bridge. But, with the current Labor/green /radical city administration the tunnels are not likely to be funded, even if it would remove a lot of traffic from residential areas, and actually reduce the number of kms driven in Trondheim. 









From the eastern bank facing west. The new tunnel portals are to the left in the picture. In front of them an elevated roundabout will be built at the end of the 4-lane bridge. 















(very) old bridge, will be reserved for bikes and pedestrian in the future. 








From the western bank facing east. 








Ramp to the elevated roundabout at the western end of the bridge. 




Animation of the project 




New bike "express" road


https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/63.3974/10.3914


OSM


----------



## Hansadyret

This is a project from rv.52 over Hemsedalsfjellet. It's now under construction. Just small upgrade projects like this can make a lot of difference to keep the road open during winter.


----------



## Hansadyret

I wonder about projects like this. Does it really need to be of 4-lane motorway standard north of Lillehammer? 
https://www.veier24.no/artikler/ent...nye-veier-ma-lyse-ut-opprdaget-pa-nytt/512540


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

I think we should develop a national motorway network connecting the major regions of Norway and reduce the need for air travel. For that purpose E6 in Gudbrandsdalen is of secondary importance to Rv 3 in Østerdalen, in my opinion, as the latter is the shorter and less hilly way to central and northern parts of Norway, while E6 north of Lillehammer is the main connection to mainly Møre and Romsdal county only.

However, north of Lillehammer, the traffic is still reasonably high (10667) so traffic 20 years from now will surely by above 12 000. According to the current regulations, motorways should be built for projected traffic volumes above 12 000, and should be considered between 6000 and 12000 following a cost / benefit analysis.

So yes, a motorway is needed there in my opinion.


----------



## Kjello0

AADT between Stor Hove and Øyer is just above 10 000. But maxing at 18 700 in july this year.
So yes, in the summer months and certain weekends/holidays. The road is close to max capacity. And there's quite a lot of accidents as well.


----------



## MattiG

54°26′S 3°24′E said:


> I think we should develop a national motorway network connecting the major regions of Norway and reduce the need for air travel. For that purpose E6 in Gudbrandsdalen is of secondary importance to Rv 3 in Østerdalen, in my opinion, as the latter is the shorter and less hilly way to central and northern parts of Norway, while E6 north of Lillehammer is the main connection to mainly Møre and Romsdal county only.
> 
> However, north of Lillehammer, the traffic is still reasonably high (10667) so traffic 20 years from now will surely by above 12 000. According to the current regulations, motorways should be built for projected traffic volumes above 12 000, and should be considered between 6000 and 12000 following a cost / benefit analysis.
> 
> So yes, a motorway is needed there in my opinion.


I believe the strategists quite easily see the benefits of the Dombås alternative. Let us assume that there will be a motorway from Oslo to both Trondheim and Ålesund (or any place beyond Dombås). Branching at Dombås would end up with an about 200 kilometres shorter network than making a parallel road via Østerdalen. The cost difference is not negligible even in Norway, I assume.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

Around 150 km, given that Elverum anyway will be connected to the motorway network in the relative short term, and only with the assumption that a motorway will be built to Ålesund as well as Trondheim, even if the traffic potential to Trondheim is many times larger.

But the point is that Gudbrandsdalen never will be the preferred truck route from south/eastern to central and northern Norway. Trucks cannot drive much faster than they do today, and will not spend the additional time and fuel needed for the extra kms and inclinations of Gudbrandsdalen/Dovre, and substantial investments are needed on Gudbrandsdalen/ Dovre (with concurrent investments in Østerdalen) to even come on par with Østedalen in terms of travel time for cars. Hence, money spent in Gudbrandsdalen today does not aid the transportation needs between south-eastern Norway and Trøndelag and e.g. Nordland at all, and it is dubious if it will even in the long run.

It should also be taken into account that E6 Dovrefjell is much more exposed to the weather and elements (actually closed today until tomorrow at least due to rock fall, see below), and building a motorway would be much more expensive per km in Gudbrandsdalen / across Dovrefjell / Drivdalen due to a more challenging terrain.








Steiner på 12-14 tonn sperrer E6


Et steinras, med steiner opp i mot 14 tonn, sperrer E6 i Drivdalen i Trøndelag søndag. Samtidig har løse gjenstander knust ført til ødeleggelser i Oppdal sentrum.




www.tv2.no


----------



## Kjello0

MattiG said:


> Branching at Dombås would end up with an about 200 kilometres shorter network than making a parallel road via Østerdalen. The cost difference is not negligible even in Norway, I assume.


The meter cost of a motorway between Dombås and Ulsberg will be far higher than a motorway up Østerdalen. I'm not that sure the Dombås alternative would win in a cost-benefit analysis. Even if the total cost would be slightly lower than the Østerdalen one.


----------



## random_user_name

Is there any comprehensive plan for building motorways in Norway? I was looking for it, but couldn't find it anywhere. It seems like road building is concentrated only on small stretches (and the class of road decided separately for each one, based on AADT), instead of following some kind of masterplan, like most countries do (at least the ones with underdeveloped motorway infrastructure).


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

For motorways specifically, I think this is the closest thing, but it is already 5 years old. It was made on insistence of the Progress party, which since left government (and ahead will have very little influence due to the socialist / Center election victory)
https://www.vegvesen.no/globalasset.../ntp-2018-grunnlag-vedlegg-3-motorvegplan.pdf








It is not really a plan, more like a vision or study, I would say...

As such, it is hardly more relevant than a proposal from the private initiative Bedre Vei. The latter is even more wishful under the current political climate, but in my opinion some of the routes, from Oslo towards Bergen and Trondheim, in particular, makes much more sense.


https://www.bedrevei.no/prioriterte-hovedveier/















The most important, and updated official national road planning document is the national transport plan, but it contains a lot more than motorways:








Meld. St. 20 (2020–2021)


Stortingsmeldingen om Nasjonal transportplan 2022–2033 er en plan for hvordan man de neste tolv årene skal arbeide i retning av det overordnede målet for transportsektoren, som er: Et effektivt, miljøvennlig og trygt transportsystem i 2050. Transportpl...




www.regjeringen.no




It is revised every four years, last time this summer, and provides overall priorities for road building by the traditional road authority in Norway, Statens vegvesen. A large part of the longer sections was however handed over to a new entity called Nye veier by the outgoing government:









Not all of these will be motorways, but some longer stretches, like (Oslo-) Sandefjord - Kristiansand - Stavanger, (Svinesund - Oslo-) Hamar - Øyer and Ulsberg - Trondheim - Steinkjer mostly will, as well as eventually Bergen - Stavanger (not part of Nye veier's portfolio) .

Nye veier prioritizes projects within its portfolio based on cost /benefit analyses, without direct control by the politicians.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

Not many signs left of Covid-19 in Norway, and the economy is definitely bouncing back. Never have more new cars been sold in Norway in September than in 2021, and of these 80% were electric and another 10% plug-in hybrid. The increase in sales from 2020 was 16%, but September 2020 also was extremely strong, with an increase of 39% over September 2019.








Registreringsstatistikken


Registreringsstatistikken viser de 20 mest solgte bilmerkene og bilmodellene hittil i år og i fjor. Du kan selv sette opp filter for det du er interessert i – om det er årets tall, fjorårstall, spesifikk måned eller om du ønsker å se personbiler, varebiler, lastebiler eller busser.…




ofv.no





I wonder how the soon full electrification of Norwegian cars and strong increase in sales will be taken into account by the authorities ahead, and how it will affect the political debate. So far, some radical parties have inched the argumentation a little bit from "cars leads to climate change" in the direction of "cars take up too much urban space", but I wonder how well that argument will work in the end.


----------



## Rob73

54°26′S 3°24′E said:


> Not many signs left of Covid-19 in Norway, and the economy is definitely bouncing back. Never have more new cars been sold in Norway in September than in 2021, and of these 80% were electric and another 10% plug-in hybrid. The increase in sales from 2020 was 16%, but September 2020 also was extremely strong, with an increase of 39% over September 2019.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Registreringsstatistikken
> 
> 
> Registreringsstatistikken viser de 20 mest solgte bilmerkene og bilmodellene hittil i år og i fjor. Du kan selv sette opp filter for det du er interessert i – om det er årets tall, fjorårstall, spesifikk måned eller om du ønsker å se personbiler, varebiler, lastebiler eller busser.…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ofv.no
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder how the soon full electrification of Norwegian cars and strong increase in sales will be taken into account by the authorities ahead, and how it will affect the political debate. So far, some radical parties have inched the argumentation a little bit from "cars leads to climate change" in the direction of "cars take up too much urban space", but I wonder how well that argument will work in the end.


You can probably put that down to how Tesla registers new vehicles, they do it in batches a couple of times per year. In September they registered 5800 vehicles, in August it was 774.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

So far this year, registrations are up 35% compared with 2020, so the trend is clear regardless of Tesla's delivery schedules. However, the split between electric and plug-in hybrids were a bit different in August at 72% electric and 20% plug-ins ,but the fraction of traditional diesel /petrol cars was even smaller.


----------



## threo2k

I feel so sorry for the people living in the northern part of norway.. they will never never never see or drive in motorways in that part of the country..


----------



## Hansadyret

The planning of Kongsvinger-E6 is taking forever. I think the national government should take over the planning of all major national roads like they've done with E16 to Hønefoss, E16 Arna-Stanghelle and E39 Hordfast.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

^^ The opposite trend is more likely now, with SP in power.


threo2k said:


> I feel so sorry for the people living in the northern part of norway.. they will never never never see or drive in motorways in that part of the country..


Instead the parliament has decided to build a railway Bodø-Tromsø...

There may not be any motorways in Northern Norway, but some roads are at least 4 lanes with reasonable capacity, e.g. parts of Rv 80 Fauske - Løding:








Google Maps


Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.




goo.gl












Google Maps


Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.




goo.gl





Nye Veier proposed a 4-lane road "with increased speed limit" on this section.

But to be honest, I think the main roads of Northern Norway currently are in fairly good shape compared with some other parts of the country, and have been so for years. Apart from the motorways that mainly have been in the larger Oslo area so far, there are for instance far more speed reductions on the main roads of southern half than in the northern half of Norway (north of Trøndelag), even of the AADT numbers for the most part are much higher in the south.


https://www.regjeringen.no/contentassets/13a80858d58a47e1a23e944b7144ee9b/h-nye-veier-as---kart-i-storformat.pdf



But, distances are also longer, so I am all far considerable higher spending per capita in the north than in the south, but full motorway all the way to Tromsø or Kirkenes is not sensible. E.g. E6 Tysfjord has a traffic of 300 AADT....


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

The new Labor/ Center party government which will be installed tomorrow has published their political platform. It is not very specific when it comes to road policies, except that they say they will half the ticket price on most ferry routes, and make the most remote ones free. However I note that the say that road construction must be put under political control and public ownership. Further, that they will study how road construction and maintenance should be organized, considering that there are now many road owners. Although this is all very unspecific, I guess we can conclude that there will be no more PPPs, although all PPPs so far in Norway have lead to drastic cost reductions and faster construction, as far as I know. Nye Veier could certainly be at risk, but maybe they will also look at how construction of county roads should be done ahead. The Center party has insisted on reeastablishment of the least populous county in Norway, Finnmark, which has a bigger area than Denmark, but only has 75 000 inhabitants. I guess there is a limit to how efficient road construction could be organized in such a small entity.


----------



## random_user_name

There was talk a couple of months ago about increasing speed limit on some motorway sections to 120 km/h (at first as a trial). Does anyone have any more recent news about that? Or is it going to be scraped by the new govt anyways?


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

120 km/h is not mentioned in the platform document of the new government, but Labor was part of the parliamentary majority approving trials on this in June, so it may still happen. No date or selection of sections have been published, afaik.


----------



## Uppsala

The Norwegian motorways are in very good condition. They are even a little more lavish than what is normal in Europe, as there is so much lighting on them. When you drive on the motorways in Norway, it feels more like it is a densely populated country such as the Netherlands. By the way, the lighting in Norway looks like in the Netherlands. Compare with Germany which has almost no lighting on the motorways.

In any case, Norway could more than well raise the speed limit on these. Several of them can handle 130 km / h without any problems.


----------



## Kjello0

Back in March Nye Veier dropped the plans of a fourway motorway with 110 km/h at Ulsberg in Trøndelag. Where Rv3 starts. However, with an extended portfolia, follows fresh money. And because of this the plans might be relaunched.
But not necessary exactly the same. The original plan was going to get extremely close to lots of cabins. And they protested.

Original plan.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

I guess the fact that they will now split the contracts after the FCC fiasco also gives them more time to find an ideal route on this southern section. 

Personally, I do not think some relatively newly built cabins should not be a heavy argument, but there were also other types of protests. The "Ny plan" (which I believe Kjell calls original) however provides better alignment, as it does not go as deep into the valley as the current road, and shorten Rv3.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

They have started paving on the Nordøyvegen project near Ålesund.

Location: https://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=62.5992&mlon=6.2358#map=14/62.5992/6.2358


----------



## Hansadyret

Construction on E39 Lyngdal east- Lyngdal west has now started. This is a 4 lane 110km/h motorway between Kristiansand and Stavanger. 
Construction on the last parcel from kristiansand past Lyngdal (E39 Mandal-Lyngdal) is expected to start 2023 and finish 2026.

https://www.aftenbladet.no/lokalt/i...ste-spadetak-i-milliardprosjekt-litt-skummelt


----------



## threo2k

I just dont understand and never understood it:

"E39 Mandal-Lyngdal is expected to start 2023"

why not just start building it now??? WHY NOT JUST NOW?!?!?!


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

Nye veier priorities their projects according to the cost /benefit, I do not know the Mandal - Lyngdal story, but the experience from Trøndelag is that they optimize their projects almost until construction start together with their contractors. Hence they might use the two years to develop and have approved a modified zoning plan.


----------



## devo

threo2k said:


> I just dont understand and never understood it:
> 
> "E39 Mandal-Lyngdal is expected to start 2023"
> 
> why not just start building it now??? WHY NOT JUST NOW?!?!?!


Well, the plan is yet to be approved. It is set to happen sometime between December and March 2022. Then after a period the project is released to the marked and if all goes to plan (good competition, no complaints from contractors who didn't win the bid) then construction could begin in 2023. 

I would just like to add two things:
Firstly, Nye Veier are planning and building new roads at a previously unheard speed. Even though they have inherited lots of matured projects they have a massive portfolio just itching to get out of the door. This means two things, one, we are quite spoiled compared to previous years, but most importantly, the market/contractors have to adopt to this expansion. 
Secondly, the exact start of a project is often overrated. If it starts in January 2023 that is quite good, but not terrible if it starts in March either. Climate has some effect on projects so within a certain margin the exact start date isn't that big of a deal. Remember that the now soon to be open E 39 Døle Bru-Mandal øst very quickly advanced the opening date half a year as they were able to proceed much quicker than anticipated.

Point being, they could have started in 2022 with a rushed plan, a rushed contract just to get things going and then ending up being delayed because of unforseen issues. It is also worth noting that this current plan was delayed because Nye Veier wanted to improve the alignment to reduce the cost of the project. This meant new consultations and such and that is why it doesn't start immediately.
Also, I might add that the market in the region is somewhat saturated at the moment (especially regarding local subcontractors) until the current projects are complete. So rushing it out the door (before summer 2022) could potentially result in very high prices.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

The Dutch regional broadcaster RTV Noord reports that a direct ferry link between Norway and the Netherlands will enter service in 2022.









Eemshaven krijgt vaste veerverbinding met Noorwegen


Vanaf april volgend jaar vaart er drie keer per week een veerboot tussen de Eemshaven en Kristiansand in Zuid-Noorwegen.




www.rtvnoord.nl





The ferry, which also takes cars and trucks, will be an 18 hour trip between Eemshaven and Kristiansand. It will sail three times per week, departing at 15:00 hrs in Eemshaven and arriving in Kristiansand at 9:00 hrs. The price is quoted at € 225 for foot passangers and from € 250 for cars. Service will start on 7 April 2022.

They say that the Norwegians are very enthusiastic about the project.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

It means a travel time about 8 hours longer on e.g. Kristiansand - Amsterdam than when taking the much shorter Kristiansand - Hirtshals ferry, but there apparently is some business in other longer ferries as well, like Oslo-Copenhagen (19 hrs) and Oslo - Kiel (20 hrs). But, tbh, I suspect Oslo, Copenhagen and Kiel probably are all more attractive destinations for car free leisure travel than Eemshaven and Kristiansand, and, to me, revival of ferry links to the UK would make much more sense, as it would actually be the fastest "ground" transport alternative between the two countries.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

54°26′S 3°24′E said:


> It means a travel time about 8 hours longer on e.g. Kristiansand - Amsterdam than when taking the much shorter Kristiansand - Hirtshals ferry


An advantage is that you can save one overnight hotel. Hirtshals is a 900 - 1000 kilometer drive from the Netherlands so it's somewhat difficult to combine with a ferry in one day, especially because travel through Germany is unreliable (Hamburg congestion). And Hirtshals - Kristiansand is a fairly expensive ferry, I looked at some prices for April 2022 and they are € 150 one way for an economy ticket, compared to € 250 advertised for Eemshaven - Kristiansand.

However an Eemshaven - Kristiansand ferry has existed in the past, but it ceased operations at least once and possible more, so this route is not very easy to operate. It also travels across open sea, so it's not very comfortable during rough weather.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

The seas can be a bit rough also Hirtshals - Kristiansand, I guess. I am not sure how you were able to find such expensive tickets, though. Most departures I found now was 975 NOK (~100 €) for a car + 2 adults, or 1500 NOK (150 €) if you add two kids, making it significantly cheaper than 250 € for car plus whatever charge per passenger needed for cabins on the longer voyage to Eemshaven. And, with 8 hours available, you can rather sleep comfortably in a hotel. But I understand if not everyone likes long-distance motorway travel, and rather instead enjoys the "luxury" of a long boat travel.


----------



## Tronni

54°26′S 3°24′E said:


> I did not realize until now, but the public road database Vegkart actually has a google streetview-like service.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vegbilder
> 
> 
> Applikasjon for visning av vegbilder langs norske veger
> 
> 
> 
> 
> vegbilder.atlas.vegvesen.no


 I thought Vegkart was detailed enough, so I'm amazed they have pictures over most of the road network as well.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

Although I hope they do not spend too much public money on it, as google maps and e.g. gulesider.no provide the same service for free, with better coverage (although neither actually are updated on this location...)

Gule Sider® Kart (construction not even started...)
Google Maps (construction phase)


----------



## Tronni

Google maps has gotten better in the last few years, but it still annoys me how there are a few roads here and there where steetview hasn't been updated in 11+ years.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

54°26′S 3°24′E said:


> Although I hope they do not spend too much public money on it, as google maps and e.g. gulesider.no provide the same service for free, with better coverage


I don't know about Norway, but in the Netherlands the government has hired a company called Cyclomedia to continuously update the entire road network with 360 degree panorama, LiDAR data and point clouds. They also map all road signs. Some companies offer additional data collection, such as IRI measurements.

As this is data is acquired with public funds, it could be argued that it should be released in the name of open data.


----------



## Gsus

54°26′S 3°24′E said:


> Thank you, this was interesting. Where do you have info on Kvithammar-Åsen? The last zoning plan on the Levanger part was approved as late as September 22nd, but it is intentionally unclear on what will be built in terms of road widths, except that Nye Veier apparently seeks to build as narrow as possible:
> View attachment 2417185
> 
> The text says that the road could be built narrower than the figure above, and if not in line with the regulations, an exemption application will be sent. But I would be surprised if the hard shoulders would be more than 2 m (see below).


I`ve heard some rumors from people in the project-organization. Don`t know the exact widths that is planned to be used on this section, but I`m guessing on 2,0 meters shoulders as you say, combined with a minimum, or close to minimum median-width (acceptable down to 0,5 meters now, 2,0m on the profile above) where this is able to be done (lot of tunnels with larger median-widths adjacent).



54°26′S 3°24′E said:


> However, 12 of 19 km of the Kvithammar-Åsen motorway will be tunnels. This is what the plan says:
> View attachment 2417195
> 
> 
> View attachment 2417179
> View attachment 2417180
> 
> 
> Here the standard is actually clearer, exemptions are currently not possible. Instead it seems like Nye Veier tries to push new standards that allows for T9.5 and T14 (sections with acceleration / retardation lanes), i. e. 1 m narrower the current regulations allow. But they are in a hurry if they should start construction for real when they said they would) (in 2021).
> 
> T9.5 does not appear ideal to me, but on Ranheim - Værnes, this is actually the profile of the existing single tube tunnels, which will continue to be used after the upgrade.


Nye Veier has had an alternative T9,5-profile made, which has 0,5 meters shoulders and 0,75 meters wide sidewalks, which they want to use on sections with < 20-25 000 AADT.





54°26′S 3°24′E said:


> At least now in retrospect, they can hide behind this exemption possibility for traffic below 20 000 AADT:
> View attachment 2417112
> 
> 
> I guess the 0.75 soft shoulder is part of "avbøtende tiltak" (compensating measures) that allows for such an exemption.


I think this was a solution Nye Veier picked from swedish normals, where apparently it is normal to have an extra width of 0,75 meters outside an asphalted shoulder of only 2,0 meters on sections where theres a guardrail, to keep sufficient room for a stranded larger vehicle.



54°26′S 3°24′E said:


> I believe the picture you found above is taken towards north, i.e. in the direction of the existing E6 bypassing the center of Melhus (express road ("motortrafikkvei") with 90 km/h).It has not been upgraded now.
> 
> I think the picture below, taken in the opposite (southern) direction towards the new motorway was a bit more ominous, but this is still within the Melhus intersection. According to the signposting plan you showed the 110 km zone may start about 100 m behind the bridge, but I think it is more likely to start after the southern ramps even further away. In any case, the road width visible in the picture may still not be representative of the new motorway.


You`re right about the direction I think. I`m not too locally known at the place. They were able to keep the existing overpass bridge in the intersection, which had three lanes beneath earlier. Theres probably not too much extra room under such a bridge, so narrow shoulders (1,5m) is probably advantageous. It might be that the`ve had an approved deviation for even narrower shoulders at this section (between ramps) as a "point-deviation".

The drawing-picture I think was from Kvål though, as it seems it was at an temporary ending of the motorway.



abedidabedu said:


> When we talk about too low speed limit, when driving on Rv4 past Raufoss south of Gjøvik this summer I noticed it was hard following the speed limit. The road felt like a 90 road, but the signed speed was 80. Most people was then driving around 100. Anyone here knows any information about the desitions that was made designing this road?
> 
> View attachment 2419511
> 
> 
> This road is designed as a two lane road without divider with grade separated interchanges.
> 
> Openstreetmap:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OpenStreetMap
> 
> 
> OpenStreetMap is a map of the world, created by people like you and free to use under an open license.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> osm.org


This section of road was opened back in 2006 from what I remember, and as you say, the geometry is very good with large curve-radiis both horizontally and vertically, and may feel encouraging for driving faster than 80. Don`t know what speed the road was planned for, but in general, two-lane "motortrafikkveg" roads planned after the old handbook 235 and earlier had "meeting-sight" instead of "stopping-sight" as dimensioning. Meeting sight is from what I remember 2x stopping sight plus an extra distance of 100 or so meters. This resulting in especially large summit-curves. One of the arguments for introducing the "narrow motorway" (the old 20m profile) was that two-lane motortrafikkveg was an expensive type of road to build because of meeting-sight (stiff vertical alignment). A motorway could be built for only stopping-sight. But after that, dimensioning speed, requirements so and so has changed, and some of this has been eaten up.


----------



## Gsus

Found this article from a local newspaper for the Telemark-region: Planleggingen av fire mil ny motorvei er i gang. Trolig firefelts deler av strekningen

Planning has started for an approx. 40 km section of E134 from Elgsjø (between Notodden and Kongsberg) to Gvammen (north-eastern end of the Mælefjell tunnel).

The article basically says that road-standard for the whole section has not yet been decided. What is clear is that from Elgsjø to an intersection immediately north of Notodden the new road will most likely be planned with the same standard as the planned road from Saggrenda (outside Kongsberg) to Elgsjø, which is a four-lane motorway with a width of 20 meters (except for some kilometeres close to Saggrenda which is planned as a two-lane road with central guardrail, as adjacent road from Kongsberg). From Notodden to Gvammen it`s for now uncertain if a four-lane motorway or an two-three lane expressway will be planned. The latter is said to be most likely standard.

The project is hoping that construction of Saggrenda-Elgsjø will commence in 2024.

Edit: Read a few things regarding Road-standards too fast.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

One whole kilometer of four lane E6 at Melhus opens to traffic today:





__





Nye Veier åpner 1 km firefelts E6 | Nye Veier AS







www.nyeveier.no


----------



## devo

54°26′S 3°24′E said:


> I did not realize until now, but the public road database Vegkart actually has a google streetview-like service. This image is taken in the northward direction just to the south of the aforementioned wilderness passing, where the speed limit changes from 100 to 80 km/h. Note the narrowing shoulder.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vegbilder
> 
> 
> Applikasjon for visning av vegbilder langs norske veger
> 
> 
> 
> 
> vegbilder.atlas.vegvesen.no


The online solution is quite new but it has been available for the authorities for many years, at least going back to 2006/7. When I inquired about why a septic truck was parked along a certain road, blocking one lane, they were able to look up the location in question (which was, and still is, a municipality road), indicating that this system is quite vast and also more expansive both in years covered and type of roads covered. 
The truck was parked next to a collecting septic tank for a new housing area and the location in question is here, note all the manhole covers: Google Maps
Anyway, it would be cool if they could add all historic photos to this service.

Speaking of the Kristiansand area, the website with panoramic photos of the E 39 Kristiansand–Mandal øst project has been updated:





E39 Kristiansand-Mandal | Virtual tour generated by Panotour


Virtual tour generated by Panotour



pano.afgruppen.no





Also, the Trysfjord bridge is getting close to completion, scheduled to be "connected" to land on either side before the new year, and then connected in the middle early in 2022.


https://kunde.byggekamera.no/?u=e39kvmo&camera=BK0223&width=fullsize


----------



## Gsus

The new government has finalized the 2022 state budget with their "partner" in the Socialist left party. Found this point in the agreement-document: 










Not sure what it means, as there`s currently a new opening for building four-lane motorway from an AADT of only 6000 (which was politically decided with support from the right-wing parties as well as Ap and Sp). The Socialist left party has tho been in favor of raising the limit to 15 000. Guess we`ll se next year. For my own sake, I´m satisfied by the old limit at 12 000 as it was an professionally set limit. Combined with seeing some road-corridors as one regarding standard, I think it`s a reasonable limit. 

If the Socialist left party get a breakthrough for 15 000 it`s disappointing, as it`s way to close to a limit to where 2+1 roads starts to become inefficient. As well as an political set limit for traffic-flow.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

Personally, I am a much stronger believer in a cost-benefit system which the current system opens up for, than looking strictly at the AADT. The price tag of building to a given standard at a given location should matter, as well as the share of trucks etc.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

ChrisZwolle said:


> One whole kilometer of four lane E6 at Melhus opens to traffic today:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nye Veier åpner 1 km firefelts E6 | Nye Veier AS
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nyeveier.no


In the meantime, further south, there are big problems. Stavåa bridge, on E6 between Berkåk and Ulsberg, is falling apart. They have been working to replace it with a temporary bridge since before the summer, while only one lane has been kept open on the existing bridge to avoid too heavy loads. But the project has dragged on, and the state of the bridge has apparently nevertheless worsened to such a degree that trucks of more than five tonne are no longer allowed on this bridge of the main highway between the south and mid / northern Norway. They instead have to make a detour of 45 minutes via Rv 30 / Røros.

The irony, and the reason they the substitute bridge is "temporary" is that Nye Veier is working on a motorway bypass here, if the new government does not **** it up. As discussed before here, the project is currently temporary halted as Nye Veier terminated the contract with FCC Construcción S.A. due to cost escalations. The plan was to remove the temporary bridge and use the old bridge again once the motorway is open, but I am not sure whether that is still a feasible.


Vegvesen map / with "streetview" with imagery of Stavåa bridge partial closure and bridge work in September:
https://vegbilder.atlas.vegvesen.no...21-09-16T13.09.29.909622_EV00006_S65D1_m07002Detour via Røros: Alvdal to Trondheim








Temporary bridge under construction








New motorway bypass (construction temporary halted). Stavåa bridge is just south of the "u-turn" south of Berkåk of the old highway. (The graphics people of Nye Veier, having north in arbitrary directions in the maps, are a bit annoying...)


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

54°26′S 3°24′E said:


> They instead have to make a detour of 45 minutes via Rv 30 / Røros.


That detour for trucks is currently closed as well. The road authorities recommend E136 and E39 as detour of the detour, and added drive of at least four hours plus two ferries compared with E6 /Rv3 . I think driving via Østersund in Sweden would have been faster, but I do not know how much administrative hassle that could be for trucks. E6 is open for cars, and they would also have many other detour options.


























Edit: Normally the best strategy in such situations would have been to wait for the road rescuers to do their job, but at noon this had taken 6 hours already...


----------



## metasmurf

54°26′S 3°24′E said:


> View attachment 2432895
> 
> 
> Edit: Normally the best strategy in such situations would have been to wait for the road rescuers to do their job, but at noon this had taken 6 hours already...


Woudn't this detour make more sense?


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

Yes, compared with going via Molde, certainly. Saves about two hours and one of two ferrie, and seems to have the same load limits / length regulations. I have been driving all of your proposed detour in bits and pieces and the road quality is OK although the descent from Oppdal to Sunndalsøra (Rv 70) is a bit steep. Not sure why the authorities did not recommend it, or why I did not think of it myself ;-)

Also Fv 705 via Tydal is an obvious candidate, especially if you already are heading towards Røros from the south (the problematic sections of Rv 30 are north of Røros) , and Fv 705 is of course without any ferries. I thought it was closed for heavy trucks, but I checked and it is not. But it includes a fairly exposed mountain pass with a rather winding and narrow road. I guess it takes more to recommend such a route route for a traffic corresponding to of the order of 1000 truck AADT than to legally allow it for individual drivers.
















Webcam Kjølifjellet from Røros to Tydal

And, the question still has relevance. Another truck ran into problems and closed off Rv 30 (the detour via Røros) around four this afternoon, the road had barely opened after the last crash. Rv 30 is not salted, and apparently has proven to be be a challenge for unprepared/ 1unskilled truck drivers. Probably they need to step up winter maintenance a few notches for this to be a working truck route Trondheim - Oslo while they are preparing that temporary E6 bridge.


----------



## random_user_name

By the way, what are the rules in Norway about the standards of winter maintenance - for example, which roads are salted and which are not?


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

It depends on traffic levels, speed limit / road standard, climatic conditions, and economy and priorities. Salt is less "useful" at stable, cold winter climate. Personally I think the amount of salt used should be drastically reduced.

The national road authorities have defined 5 standards summarized below (more detailed specifications and subclasses exist). At municipal level, other standards exist.

Class A. "Always" bare asfalt (dry or wet)
Class B. As A, except that some hard ice/ snow allowed outside of tracks in a limited time period
Class C. Bare road in periods with little precipitation and always with temperatures around 0 C. Hard and even ice and snow cover allowed at low temperatures and heavy snow falls.
Class D. Hard snow and ice accepted (i.e. sand rather than salt is used)
Class E. Hard snow and ice accepted, and friction coefficient down to 0.2 (i. e. less sanding than D). Not allowed on national roads.
Again, vegkart.no has a wealth of information. Outside the urban area, E6 has mostly class B south of Trondheim (light purple or pink), while the detour (in orange via Gauldalen / Singsås in the lower part of the map) is class D, which explains why so many trucks ran into problems yesterday. (Vegkart does not provide info on winter maintenance of municipal roads, it seems, only national and county roads)


















This is a public web-cam (https://webkamera.atlas.vegvesen.no/public/kamera?id=2839444 ) from E6 through the southern suburbs of Trondheim. It has class A winter maintenance, but during the afternoon and night of 2021-12-01 nevertheless not completely bare ;-)

PS: I read now that the road authorities will recommend the Molde detour for heavy vehicles until the Stavåa bridge on E6 is fixed, which will not happen in 2021. So instead of improving the winter maintenance of Fv 30 they think that the trucks should spend more than 3.5 hours extra Trondheim - Oslo.


----------



## MattiG

54°26′S 3°24′E said:


> It depends on traffic levels, speed limit / road standard, climatic conditions, and economy and priorities. Salt is less "useful" at stable, cold winter climate. Personally I think the amount of salt used should be drastically reduced.
> 
> The national road authorities have defined 5 standards summarized below (more detailed specifications and subclasses exist). At municipal level, other standards exist.
> 
> Class A. "Always" bare asfalt (dry or wet)
> Class B. As A, except that some hard ice/ snow allowed outside of tracks in a limited time period
> Class C. Bare road in periods with little precipitation and always with temperatures around 0 C. Hard and even ice and snow cover allowed at low temperatures and heavy snow falls.
> Class D. Hard snow and ice accepted (i.e. sand rather than salt is used)
> Class E. Hard snow and ice accepted, and friction coefficient down to 0.2 (i. e. less sanding than D). Not allowed on national roads.
> Again, vegkart.no has a wealth of information. Outside the urban area, E6 has mostly class B south of Trondheim (light purple or pink), while the detour (in orange via Gauldalen / Singsås in the lower part of the map) is class D, which explains why so many trucks ran into problems yesterday. (Vegkart does not provide info on winter maintenance of municipal roads, it seems, only national and county roads)
> View attachment 2438452
> 
> 
> View attachment 2440776
> 
> 
> This is a public web-cam (https://webkamera.atlas.vegvesen.no/public/kamera?id=2839444 ) from E6 through the southern suburbs of Trondheim. It has class A winter maintenance, but during the afternoon and night of 2021-12-01 nevertheless not completely bare ;-)
> 
> PS: I read now that the road authorities will recommend the Molde detour for heavy vehicles until the Stavåa bridge on E6 is fixed, which will not happen in 2021. So instead of improving the winter maintenance of Fv 30 they think that the trucks should spend more than 3.5 hours extra Trondheim - Oslo.


I guess that the standard is not enforced during a very bad weather. Finland has a similar scheme, and the maintenance work is done in the best effort mode until the end of the snowfall. What is different, Finland closes public roads very seldom, and winter-closed public roads and convoy driving are unknown concepts. No mountain roads.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

Sure, during adverse weather it is not possible to keep the standard without having very short intervals between each plowing / salting / sanding, which would be hugely expensive because a lot of trucks and drivers would need to be standby. Each class has specified maximum intervals for maintenance during ongoing wheater events that regulates this. For class A it is 1.5 hours.
https://www.vegvesen.no/globalassets/***/handboker/hb-r610.pdf
In the same document I also found this table regarding which class could be used for which AADT. Again, this is really relevant only for county and national roads.









In Norway, roads do get closed very seldom as well, except some exposed mountain roads that are closed permanently for the winter or during very bad weather and in case of accidents, landslides etc.. Roads are not closed due just low friction or a lot of snow..

Are highways close to the Norwegian border in Northern Finland never closed during blizzards?


----------



## MattiG

54°26′S 3°24′E said:


> Are highways close to the Norwegian border in Northern Finland never closed during blizzards?


Such an event happened in December 2013 for a few hours. The 21/E8 go closed in Kilpisjärvi because of excessive snow and heavy wind.

Much more frequent reasons of closure are those incompetent truck drivers transporting salmon from Norwegian fishing ports, having zero experience on winter driving. The road 21/E8 is the only one between Kaaresuvanto in Finland (x21/E8/E45) and Skibotn in Norway (xE6/E8). If that 155 km road stretch gets blocked because of a rescue work, the shortest alternative route over E10 in Sweden is 220 kilometers longer.


----------



## suburbicide

Around 2000 vehicles have been stuck on E18 near Tvedestrand for hours due to heavy snow fall. Cars are running out of fuel/power in the cold, and the police have now initiated evacuation with the help of the Civil Defence, the Red Cross and others.

.


----------



## Gsus

A presentation from 2019 shows the project investigated a somewhat similar solution back in 2019 (Page 15): https://www.vegvesen.no/globalasset...slag-til-kommunedelplan-e39-julboen-molde.pdf

I'm would guess a reduction of tunnel crossections in the Tautra tunnel may follow aswell, if speed limit now is planned to 90 instead of 100/110.


----------



## Kjello0

It will be a while until E39 through Vinjeøra opens again..


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

There is also some "water under the bridge" at the E6 Klett interchange, and the driver of this car did just not realize how much....










There have been record precipitation over most of Mid-Norway, and with snow on the ground and the ground frozen the flooding has multiplied and the water nowhere to go. Numerous roads have been closed in the region due to flooding and landslides, including E14, E39 (many places), Fv 65, Fv 714, Fv 6612, Fv 6330 +++








Trafikkinformasjon


Se oppdaterte vei- og trafikkmeldinger. Bruk ruteplanleggeren, finn ladestasjoner og rasteplasser, og bruk webkamera for å se om det er kø dit du skal.




www.vegvesen.no


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

As of current the following roads are closed due to the storm "Gyda" in Mid- and Western Norway:

*Trøndelag:*


E14 Stjørdal–Sweden – flooding
E39 multiple places due to flooding / landslide: Vasslivatnet, Vinjeøra - Stormyra
Fv 6612 Klett – flooding
Fv 6330 Almås–Sela – adverse conditions
Fv 720 Værrabotn–Follafoss – flooding
Fv 6674 Jonsvatnet – flooding
Fv 6900 Skjækerfossen – flooding
Fv 714 Åstfjordbrua and Dolmesundbrua wind
Fv 6172 Rinndal – flooding
Fv 6838 Indre Fosen – flooding
Fv 761 Gangstad – flooding
Fv 6578 Valdøyan – landslide
Fv 6358 Grova – flooding
Fv 6646 Onsøya – landslide
Fv 65 Garberg and at Volmebrua – flooding
Fv 72 multiple places – flooding
Fv 6712 multiple places – flooding
Fv 30 Støren–Røros – Dragåsen landslide risk
Fv 6502 Meldal – landslide
Fv 773 Steinfjellet – bad weather
Fv 6506 Orkland at Stene – flooding
Fv 6422/6402 ferry Garten–Storfosna–Leksa–Værnes



*Møre og Romsdal:*

Fv 6134 Sunndal
Fv 6150 Surnadal – flooding
Fv 660 Eresfjord – landslide
Fv 5890 Volda – flooding
Fv 6114 Gjemnes – flooding
Fv 63 Geiranger – landslide risk
Fv 6012 Ekesdalsvatnet – bad weather
Fv 6138 Sunndal – avalanche risk
Fv 655 Nordangsdalen – avalanche risk
Fv 65 Surnadal flooding
Fv 6186 Spjøtneset – flooding
Fv 6940 Solnørdalen – flooding
Fv 6128 Rødtingnes – flooding

*Vestland:*

Rv 13 Vikafjellet – bad weather
Rv 15 Strynefjellet – bad weather / avalanche risk
Fv 53 Tyin–Årdal – bad weather
Fv 616 Skatestraumtunnelen–Berleporten – landslide
Fv 5625 Skjedalsvegen/ Voldadalane landslide
Fv 5744 Fossebakken–Navelsaker landslide risk
Fv 5723 Bødal–Sande – landslide risk
Fv 5724 Oldedalen – landslide risk
Fv 611 Frammarsvik landslide
Fv 609 Førde–Kvammen – landslide risk
Fv 5722 Lindvik–Flo i Stryn – landslide risk
Fv 5720 Årnes–Gjelle i Stryn – landslide risk
Fv 5606 Ulvastad–Menes (about to be closed)
Fv 5600 Vik–Arnafjord (about to be closed)

*Innlandet:*

Fv 27 Venabygdsfjellet bad weather


----------



## MattiG

54°26′S 3°24′E said:


> As of current the following roads are closed due to the storm "Gyda" in Mid- and Western Norway:
> ...


It is the same low pressure that pushed the continental cold weather away in Finland, causing the temperature to raise 30 degrees in 24 hours.

Is it a policy in Norway to name storms after characters in the Scandinavian mythology? I am asking because the Finnish naming standard was earlier based on women's names. After heavy criticism, the standard was changed, and the names are nowadays both male and female.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

No, I think they would run out of names quite quickly, then. Naming weather events only started in 1995 in Norway. 








Liste over ekstremvær i Norge – Wikipedia







no.m.wikipedia.org


----------



## Hansadyret

Kjello0 said:


> It will be a while until E39 through Vinjeøra opens again..


Look at that narrow road. Incredible that this is E39.
Where exactly is this in vinjeøra? I wonder if this projecet came just a little to late.










E39 Staurset–Stormyra


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

It's here, yeah so hopefully this would not have happened with a more modern road:








Kjello btw had a post about the zoning plan work some time ago. I believe he comes from the area. Fv 65 via Rindal and Surnadal used to be the main highway to large parts of Nordmøre from Trondheim, so when they chose to route E39 further north-west/out along what used to be local roads instead, some of the sections were of very low standard, but E39 has improved significantly since (while nothing happens on Fv65)


Due to blizzard, E6 Dovrefjell is also closed now, meaning that all European roads of Trøndelag have closures. Many communities are of course not accessible by road due to Gyda, including the whole municipalities of Meråker (E14 is closed also on the Swedish side) and Frøya (the bridge Dolmsundbrua still closed). For others, there have been extreme detours, e.g. more than 2 hours extra via Oppdal for Surnadal - Trondheim.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

Some videos 

E39 Vinjeøra




Around Fv65 Surnadal 




Repair of Fv65 Orkdal 




Some local road in Verdal


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

Fv 65, Orkdal, Trøndelag








E14, Stjørdal








This prediction prior to Gyda clearly illustrates the "atmospheric river" phenomenon causing all the rain, which occurs between strong low and high pressures.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

It seems similar to the event that British Columbia had in November 2021.


----------



## italystf

ChrisZwolle said:


> It seems similar to the event that British Columbia had in November 2021.


Or Roja Valley in France in October 2020.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

But now the rain is over and we are back to shoveling snow ;-)

I guess I can go on forever here, but here are some more images of flooding, landslides, and avalanches over and erosion of roads caused by the heavy rain combined with rapidly melting snow. In such extreme conditions, the water finds new and unexpected paths:
E39, Vassli, Trøndelag








Fv 700 Svorkmo, Trøndelag








Fv 709 Skaun, Trøndelag








Fv 6646 Skaun, Trøndelag








Fv6578, Lundamo, Trøndelag








Bergslia, Meldal, Trøndelag








Fv 6012 along Eikedalsvatnet / Viketunnelen, Møre og Romsdal








Same place








Fv6502 Orkland, Trøndelag








Fv 6506 Orkland, Trøndelag








From Fannrem, Trøndelag








Fv 6114, Korstadfjorden/Batnfjorden, Møre og Romsdal








Fv 63, Eidsdal, Møre og Romsdal








Fv 5637 Luster, Vestland


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Most of that should be able to be cleared relatively easy. Are there reports of collapsed bridges or collapsed roads? Or is it limited to that E39 photo posted earlier.


----------



## devo

Hansadyret said:


> Look at that narrow road. Incredible that this is E39.
> Where exactly is this in vinjeøra? I wonder if this projecet came just a little to late.
> 
> E39 Staurset–Stormyra


Is it narrow or is the subsidence just massive... I'm looking at the foundations and I have my thoughts, looks like a pile of gravel at best. 

I guess the point is that this (and many other similar roads) will suffer the same fate with heavy rainfall because it's basically an old road that seems to have been gradually widened without the foundations being redone. It's probably technically wide enough as it has yellow center markings but that doesn't help if it doesn't have proper drainage. 

I remember many years ago the Norwegian road authorities were criticised for not planning or building wide enough roads, i.e. the shoulders were so narrow that heavy vehicles pushed the road outwards, creating cracks for water to form inside the foundations. If the foundations consists of a pile of sand then you have the result above. 

The only solution is to widen shoulders, dig ditches and drainage and do all that boring stuff that no politicians will win any elections on.
But it needs to be done on every road that isn't planned to be replaced.


----------



## devo

E 39 Trysfjordbrua










As *ChrisZwolle *reported earlier, the two formworks of the concrete cantilever bridge at Trysfjorden had met in the middle.
Some days ago the westernmost formwork was pushed back, indicating that the final segment is being, or have been cast.

According to this article the connection is supposed to happen mid February. It might seem to happen sooner, the formworks move every 14th day.

(Article is in Norwegian but has a nice closeup of the formwork.)








- Kobler første landkar før jul - N247 - Nyheter fra Søgne, Songdalen og Flekkerøy


Nettavis med nyheter fra Søgne og Songdalen




www.n247.no





Maybe we could see traffic on this section sooner than expected? Time will show.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

ChrisZwolle said:


> Most of that should be able to be cleared relatively easy. Are there reports of collapsed bridges or collapsed roads? Or is it limited to that E39 photo posted earlier.


Yes, I agree, but it would not been good to drive past as one of these rock-falls, landslides or avalanches.

E. g. Fv 65 also collapsed, but over a shorter section, as shown above. There are also other roads that have been eroded, but none so bad as E39 Vinjeøra, to my knowledge.


devo said:


> The only solution is to widen shoulders, dig ditches and drainage and do all that boring stuff that no politicians will win any elections on.
> But it needs to be done on every road that isn't planned to be replaced.


For all main highways, I agree, but it is kind of theoretical, and probably not with a favorable cost benefit, if you mean all Norwegian highways.


----------



## devo

54°26′S 3°24′E said:


> [...]
> 
> For all main highways, I agree, but it is kind of theoretical, and probably not with a favorable cost benefit, if you mean all Norwegian highways.


It is being done and a sober level of maintenance is always cost beneficial. Example is Rv 9 through Setesdalen where (in addition to new segments) many parts of the road is being redone like this, ditches dug, drainage widened, minor shoulder widening and so on – sometimes it takes minor effort to prevent a major problem in the future.
But it costs money and that has to be allocated by a minister that won't have any ribbons to cut for the money allocated. It sounds stupid but it is actually this ridiculous and Norway isn't alone in this kind of paradigm. Another issue is that maintenance never gets "done" so in some way you are right about it being a somewhat theoretical goal.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

I was thinking more on secondary roads, in particular secondary (four digit) county roads and municipal roads. Rebuilding them all will be very expensive, a closure for a few hours or days from time to time not so much.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Another round of significant weather:


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1482789488543862788

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1482770591023304711


----------



## MattiG

Hansadyret said:


> Look at that narrow road. Incredible that this is E39.


Not very incredible, I would say.

I am pretty sure that when the Norwegian authorities made a decision in 2000 to take 1000+ kilometers of partially substandard roads, and rename them to E39, they very well knew it would take decades to build the entire road to meet the European road quality standards (if any). Roads do not get any better by just changing number signs. There is only one way to eat an elephant: a bite at a time.









_Reader's Digest Nordic Road Book 1970_


----------



## Kjello0

Hansadyret said:


> Look at that narrow road. Incredible that this is E39.
> Where exactly is this in vinjeøra? I wonder if this projecet came just a little to late.
> 
> 
> E39 Staurset–Stormyra


Mr Bouvet Island was fooled by the wrongly placed marking from Statens Vegvesen. To be more precise, it's here:









It's the pipe that leads Klokkarbekken under the road that have been the problem. It was both to small and probably to some extend clogged as well. 

The red line shows the approved 2015 plan for the new road. Which would just barely bypass it.
While blue in the bottom right corner shows the yet to be approved plan Statens Vegesen wants to go for now.
So yes, that project comes slightly a few years to late.

Local traffic can bypass it as you see. But it's not fit for larger viechles to drive up/down Vinjebakken. It's both to narrow, windy and steep.

I'm not sure, but I think the road that have collapsed was built in the mid/late 30s. At least that's when the road towards Trondheim was built. And the germans built a bunker to superwise the road. So it's at least built pre 1945. 
I doubt anything have been done to the road fundament since it was built. Only adding some width to it. Nothing have been done to it in my lifetime at least. And in winter, it has always been a problem spot for larger viechles.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

Kjello0 said:


> Mr Bouvet Island was fooled by the wrongly placed marking from Statens Vegvesen. To be more precise, it's here:


Yeah, I understood that much when I saw the video from the place made by the municipality.



Kjello0 said:


> 'm not sure, but I think the road that have collapsed was built in the mid/late 30s. At least that's when the road towards Trondheim was built. And the germans built a bunker to superwise the road. So it's at least built pre 1945.
> I doubt anything have been done to the road fundament since it was built. Only adding some width to it. Nothing have been done to it in my lifetime at least. And in winter, it has always been a problem spot for larger viechles.


A lot of roads in Norway have a similar history. Originally built or at least reconstructed in the 30s, then maybe widened in the 60s and at some point asphalt was put on top...


----------



## Kjello0

Kjello0 said:


> It will be a while until E39 through Vinjeøra opens again..


Rebuilding on its way. They're hoping to reopen it next friday.


----------



## Hansadyret

Nye Veier plan to announce 7 new contracts this year:
Nye Veier lyser ut veiprosjekter for 15 milliarder i år


*E6 Storhove-Øyer**Mars**1,6 mrd**Tunnel/vei**Innlandet**E6 Berkåk-Vindåsliene**April**2 mrd**Vei/tunnel/bru**Trøndelag**E6 Sørelva-Borkamo**Mai**700 mill**Vei**Nordland**E39 Bue-Ålgård**August**2,2 mrd**Vei/tunnel/bru**Rogaland**E39 Mandal-Lyngdal**September**4,7 mrd**Tunnel/vei/bru**Agder**Riksvei 13 Skare-Sogndal**Oktober**200 mill**Vei/sikring/div**Vestland**E18/E39 Ytre ring**November**3,8 mrd**Tunnel**Agder*


----------



## Hansadyret

The planning of new E18 Tvedestrand-Bamble is a mess, so now they're starting all over again. The demands from all the municipalities is making the project to expensive. I've always said there should be a state plan for these big projects. 
But maybe this is good for some smaller Nye Veier projects that could be started earlier?
(+) Byggingen av ny E18 blir utsatt


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

I like that Nye Veier still is making efforts to optimize the new projects and do not throw any shit that the municipalities throw at them. However, they seem to consider lower speed limit alternatives, which I do not like.

The small town of Beisfjord southeast of Narvik in Nordland / Northern Norway , currently has no road access due to a large avalanche. The 700 people there also lost their electricity, but a new underwater cable will prevent similar outages ahead.








Vei- og trafikkinformasjon


Se oppdatert vei- og trafikkinformasjon. Bruk ruteplanleggeren, finn ladestasjoner og rasteplasser, og bruk webkamera for å se om det er kø dit du skal.




www.vegvesen.no


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

More bad weather has led to further closures in Northern Norway. For instance, E6 is closed at two places in Troms due to an avalanche and risk of avalanche. The distance by road between Tromsø and Alta is normally 381 km but is now 842, via Sweden and Finland. Also Tjeldsund bridge, connecting Lofoten and Vesterålen and city of Harstad to the mainland is closed.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

They're dismantling the equipment at the E39 Trysfjord Bridge:


----------



## devo

ChrisZwolle said:


> They're dismantling the equipment at the E39 Trysfjord Bridge:


According to an article in the regional newspaper _Fædrelandsvennen_, the bridge deck will be joined at the bottom, and then the top, these operations ending on February 15th.
There is still a lot of work to be done before the stretch is set to open this fall. The collapsed scaffolding at Monankrysset could potentially delay the project but no words on that so far.

The article on the bridge being joined is here, behind a paywall (but with a free sunset picture to behold):








(+) Om noen dager smeltes milliardbroa sammen: – En milepæl


Ingeniørkunst på høyt nivå, 64 meter over Trysfjorden, er bare dager unna å bli ferdig. Brodekkene på Norges nest høyeste bro er under fem meter fra hverandre.




www.fvn.no





At least the Trysfjord bridge will have a happy merger on Valentines day on behalf of those less lucky among us.


----------



## Kjello0

Kjello0 said:


> Local traffic can bypass it as you see. But it's not fit for larger viechles to drive up/down Vinjebakken. It's both to narrow, windy and steep.


And twice today some damn foreign semi's tried to drive up. And the bypass was closed for more than 3 hours.
Luckely neither of them got passed that first turn, and reached the steepest part of the hill.


http://imgur.com/r1fp6KY




http://imgur.com/Okfsthm


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

Luckily, E39 Vinjeøra opened yesterday (the picture to the right below was from a few days earlier)









Also the work on E6 Ranheim (Trondheim) - Værnes (Stjørdal) is progressing despite the winter. As discussed before, one of the most controversial sections is in Hommelvik, where the E6 will continue to run quite close to the town. In order to straighen a curve in rather steep terrain, the road will have to be built up quite a bit, and also two new bridges will be constructed across the small river of Homla. A temporary bridge has now been built, presumably to transport rocks from the new tunnel tube that is blasted to the west of Homla to the foundations of the new motorway.









Some illustrations of the plan in Hommelvik:








Illustration of the built up road. Homla is between the point of view and the road.








Arial point of view of the town of Hommelvik with the new road. The ground-level illustration above is with point of view inside the kink of the river. The arial winter picture is with point of view on the opposite side of the road than this one.

OSM-link shown existing and new road








Node: ‪Hommelvik‬ (‪25965511‬) | OpenStreetMap


OpenStreetMap is a map of the world, created by people like you and free to use under an open license.




osm.org


----------



## Ingenioren

Runs fairly close to this village(town is slightly generous i think.) But its not like it has houses right next to the motorway like in Sarpsborg or Moss.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

I suspect the relative height the road, and reflection from the cliff pulls in the other direction in terms of noise, though. But in the end, there was no good alternative, and at least during the first few decades, there will be less noise than from the existing highway.


Ingenioren said:


> Runs fairly close to this village(town is slightly generous i think.)


Borderline, sure. But according to world bsnk, at least, the limit is at 5000.








How do we define cities, towns, and rural areas?


Because national definitions of urban and rural areas differ significantly from one country to another, it is difficult to compare these areas across national borders.




blogs.worldbank.org





Hommelvik had 5740 in 2021, and the basis of the place was always, until recently at least, industry (e. g. deep harbor, shipyard specializing in car ferries (closed down, but I believe some mechanical industry persist) , saw mill (closed), and, much further back, ironworks). Finally, I am always hesitant calling anything a village in Norway, It is simply a concept that historically did not exist here except in the fishing areas, and it still has not really caught on.

Urban settlement statistics of Statistics Norway (SSB): Population and land area in urban settlements

There is one larger contiguous built-up area in the municipality of Malvik called... Malvik (by SSB, at least), but, IMO, it is much less of a town than Hommelvik, and certainly not a village. Rarher, it is a suburb of Trondheim with no clearly defined center. It probably will be added to the population of Trondheim urban area in the statistics in a few years anyway (only a farm or two is in the way, and part of Malvik urban area is actually already in Trondheim municipality).


----------



## devo

Trysfjordbrua today, one week before the final segment is "complete".
The formwork will probably stay in place for a while so don't expect it to be lowered/dismantled the same day.

The angle is a bit deceiving, from this opposite angle (taken last Thursday) you could see that there is still one segment left:








Photo: Nicolai Prebensen, N247.no

This and more photos can be found in this article (in Norwegian):








Fire meter igjen - N247 - Nyheter fra Søgne, Songdalen og Flekkerøy


Nettavis med nyheter fra Søgne og Songdalen




www.n247.no





Despite strong winds last week it is still on track to be merged on February 15th.
The two segments may deviate up to 40 mm, however according to project manager Solvik it is on track to be a "bullseye" (innertier).


----------



## ChrisZwolle

The Italians have withdrawn from a large PPP tender in Northern Norway:









Via Borealis trekker seg fra OPS prosjektet E10 Hålogalandsvegen


Via Borealis har ut fra egne vurderinger trukket seg fra konkurransen om å få bygge og drifte E10/rv. 85 Tjeldsund-Gullesfjordbotn-Langvassbukt.




www.vegvesen.no





The Hålogalandsvegen PPP project is an 82 kilometer road upgrade in the Hålogaland region.

There were three consortia bidding for the project;


Nordland Forbinde: (Gülermark + Aldesa + several Intertoll companies). This is a Turkish-Spanish-Hungarian consortium
Skanska Hålogalandsvegen: (Skanska)
Via Borealis: (ASTM + Acciona + Itinera). This is an Italian-Spanish-Italian consortium. They have withdrawn.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

The 1,100 meter long Ljoteli Tunnel of Fv. 53 at Årdal has opened to traffic yesterday. It is an avalanche safety project on the road from Årdal to Tyin.









Skredsikringsprosjektet på fv. 53 Ljoteli er opna


Første bil køyrde gjennom den 1100-meter lange tunnelen 23. februar, etter at fylkesordførar Jon Askeland opna det etterlengta skredsikringsprosjektet i Årdal kommune.




www.vestlandfylke.no


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

54°26′S 3°24′E said:


> I am pretty sure it is ~1.5 m. The lane width is 3.5 m.
> View attachment 2496084
> 
> Like it or not, 1.5 m shoulder is actually an exemption that is opened for on highways with less than 12 000 AADT during the next 20 years. The only problem is that this section already has 11 000 AADT, which hence will surpass with 12 000 AADT with 100% certainty during the next two decades. So I am not sure how this exemption was granted. Maybe they used some old regulations, or maybe the road directorate does not care about their own regulations.


The schools had winter holiday this week, and I finally got around to drive on this new section. Apart from the rather narrow shoulders, the surface was already noticeably bumpy, which will of course be a bigger issue when the speed limit is raised from 80 to 110 km/h later this year. Nye veier agrees that the surface is off-spec, even if the final upper layer of road surface (wearing course) is not due until a year or two. This issue has been picked up by the local press: (+) Splitter nye E6: - Så humpete at det er helt tragisk

Nye Veier is looking into the issue, but let's hope there is not something fundamentally wrong, like in some other rather recent projects in Norway.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Trysfjord Bridge. The formwork for the center span is being lowered:


----------



## devo

Note the two cables dangling from the eastern part of the bridge. These were put in place to stabilise the bridge during construction, three pairs either side of each tower.
Cantilever bridges can be built with a span upwards of ~300 meter, depending on the location (wind) the spans would need to be tensioned to reduce sway.
Removal of these started last week and was a clear sign that the bridge is complete and "settled".

When discussing the alignment for this part of E 39, there was always a fear that a bridge would "ruin" the aestethics of this fjord. Of course there will be light and noise pollution but in my opinion, and from a purely visual point of view the bridge, which is quite substantial, fits nicely within the terrain. I think mostly because the bridge is tall (~60 m) and quite sleek, but also that the hills either side are so much taller than the bridge. The towers are also placed neatly either side of the fjord.

In comparison, the 1994 and 2020 cantilever Varodd bridges, which were built with the same technique but with three towers and a noticeable incline, looks more out of place than the suspension bridge it replaced (a bridge that had a 337 meter span, more than a cantilever bridge could.) Point being, not all locations would fit a cantilever bridge, from an aesthetic point of view (in my opinion).

The Varodd bridges, 2010:








(Photo taken by me back in January 2010 when the Topdal fjord froze overnight all the way out to the bridge)


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

Kjello0 said:


> The new E39 through the village of Vinjeøra (my homeplace) was approved back in 2015. And was scheduled to start construction in 2022. Now Statens Vegvesen wants to change the plans. And build it outside of the village. One of the reasons being that they then won't have to tear down 13 houses/cabins. The local newspaper published an article about it. But did for some reason remove it later.
> Avisa Sør-Trøndelag: Har tegnet ny E39-trasé - eiendommer kan være berget
> I had screenshooted this illustration before the article was removed though.
> View attachment 1400881
> 
> Red being the approved plan.
> Green being the new proposed line.
> 
> Being a local, I have mixed feelings about this. While the driver in me like that one get a more direct line, with less exits and such. Perhaps even a 90 km/h speed limit. After all, it's a European Route. And in my opinion one should have a motorway going from Trondheim to Ålesund anyways.
> 
> However, the local enthusiast in me don't like that the through traffic is completely removed from the village. It's both important for the local diner that opened a few years ago. And there's plans for a new gas stations rest stop where the E39 meets Fv680 towards Kyrksæterøra (closest town) in the eastern end of the approved plan. Currently, there's no proper gas stations along the E39 between Orkanger in the east, and Aspøya in the west. A distance of 120 km and a ferry. A gas station at Vinjeøra roughly halfway between would be perfect.
> With the proposed plan, the traffic to and from Kyrksæterøra would split before meeting the E39. Hence one don't get that one junction where all the traffic meets. And it ruins the perfect spot for a gas station rest stop.
> And on a personal note, the proposed line comes very close to one of my favourite places to take a bath in the river. I'd hate if that place becomes ruined by traffic noise. Or construction for that matter.


It seems like your favorite river bathing place is in danger, Kjell, at least for skinny dipping. Statens vegvesen is recommending bypassing Vinjeøra, because it is both cheaper and more efficient for through traffic due to better geometry. I.e., they are recommending Alt 2 / yellow route in the map below. The zoning plan is to be discussed by the council of the Heim municipality in June or September, and if the plan is approved and there are no other problems, construction could start next year and the new 10.5 km section of E39 could open in 2025.
















OpenStreetMap


OpenStreetMap is a map of the world, created by people like you and free to use under an open license.




osm.org












Statens vegvesen anbefaler ny E39 utenfor Vinjeøra


En konsekvensutredning viser at ny veglinje utenfor Vinjeøra vil gi billigere veg, bedre fremkommelighet og redusert ulykkesrisiko.




www.vegvesen.no


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

Although initial works have been going on for a while, Nye veier announced on 23rd of February that the construction of E6 Kvithamar-Åsen started with a bang. If they had known what was going to happen the next day, they might have chosen a different wording, but in these times it is worth mentioning that this 19 km section has strategic interest that will reduce the vulnerability of our transport network. Apart from ferries routes, the current E6 is the only Norwegian highway connecting North and South Norway here.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

The first of three tunnels of the E6 motorway from Ranheim (Trondheim) to Værnes (Stjørdal) has been broken through: the 1.6 km Være Tunnel.

This is the second of tube of the existing E6 tunnel. 

Location: OpenStreetMap






__





Nå er vi gjennom i Væretunnelen | Nye Veier AS







www.nyeveier.no


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

^^ The border between Trondheim and Malvik municipalities is crossed somewhere in that tunnel. Another milestone with an immediate impact for Trondheim traffic was reached today. The single-lane E6 ramps from the southern main entrance to the Trondheim city center ("Midtown") to the E6 bypass have for decades been a bottleneck in Trondheim traffic. These ramps have now been widened, with the northbound ramps opening today, and the southbound opening about a month ago. Compared with the huge traffic delays these ramps have caused, the widening of the ramps was very inexpensive (~3 M€). It makes you wonder why this was not done a long time ago. At the same time, the northbound 3rd lane of E6 south of these ramps were also opened after having been closed during the construction period. E6 now has four or more lanes through the entire urban area of Trondheim. Even so, traffic is quite congested in Trondheim at the moment as Rv 706 just to the west of this interchange and on of the few routes from east to west in Trondheim is closed as a new Sluppen bridge is constructed across the river Nidelven.








Sluppen interchange with widened E6 ramps seen from the south (towards the city center), with E6 continuing to the right / northeast as it bypasses the central parts of Trondheim

Open street map








OpenStreetMap


OpenStreetMap is a map of the world, created by people like you and free to use under an open license.




osm.org


----------



## Ingenioren

Makes you wonder with the Manglerudproject on thin ice, if the single-lane part of E6 near Ulven on the Oslo Ring with a 270degree turnaround will stay there or something must be done also here.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

That absolutely sounds like a good idea. Note that the now widened ramps in Trondheim actually had slightly higher traffic in 2021 according to Vegkart.no, 18500 AADT in both directions at Sluppen/Trondheim vs 14654 southbound and 16927 northbound at Ulven/Oslo. Relatively speaking, I guess the Oslo ramps are slightly less important for local traffic.

One problem with the former southbound split of lanes at Sluppen was that a lot of drivers tended hog the left lane many kms in advance. This was even worse before, when there was a single lane section further north-east, so some drives were hogging in the left lane for the entire Trondheim E6 bypass in both directions, too lazy (or nervous) to change lanes twice.


----------



## random_user_name

Isn't hogging the left lane a common issue in Norway? It seems much more prevalent than in other countries, which is strange, because if I understand correctly, overtaking from the right is prohibited? The worst happens on 3-lane carriageways, there's literally nobody driving in the right lane. What's the point of having the third lane then, if it's only used as an extension for on/off ramps?


----------



## ChrisZwolle

An underground directional T interchange is recommended for E16 / E18 west of Oslo:


----------



## Gsus

Ingenioren said:


> Makes you wonder with the Manglerudproject on thin ice, if the single-lane part of E6 near Ulven on the Oslo Ring with a 270degree turnaround will stay there or something must be done also here.


This is absolutely something that should have been done years ago, but would be much more complicated than Sluppen, as the road from Sluppen in direction Trondheim city centre has been reduced from a four-lane road with all lanes available for all traffic to four lanes where one in each direction are bus-lanes. South of the intersection, E6 already has six lanes. This only demanded the bus-lane outbound to be ended before the now two-lane southbound ramp from E6 Omkjøringsvegen merges. For E6 in Oslo, it would need a longer section with at least three lanes southbound from where E6 from north merges with Ring 3, which would mean rebuilding of the adjacent intersection to the south where todays lane from E6 north goes directly to that ramp. The distances here are already very shord. I`m saying it should have been done years ago bacause the quarter-cloverleaf in this intersection was temporary mirrored for about 5 years from about 2008 to 2013 because of other works in the area (Løren tunnel on Ring 3). A rebuild here should been part of a project done at the same time. Sadly, it seems that in Oslos current political climate, an expasion of this intersection will be viewed as an increase of capasity that is not welcomed. The Trondheim-politicians seems to be more progressive than Oslo and Bergen in these cases. All road-projects are balically "impossible" in the two later cities, with MDG behind the wheel on transport-issues, and a Labour-party who has abdicated in these issues.



random_user_name said:


> Isn't hogging the left lane a common issue in Norway? It seems much more prevalent than in other countries, which is strange, because if I understand correctly, overtaking from the right is prohibited? The worst happens on 3-lane carriageways, there's literally nobody driving in the right lane. What's the point of having the third lane then, if it's only used as an extension for on/off ramps?


E6 from Hvam to Tangerud north of Oslo is the crown example of this.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

Another landslide over a major highway of Norway, this time E6 along the Snåsa lake north of Steinkjer. There is a zoning plan for a 500 MNOK tunnel here to avoid this section. In the previous national transport plan construction start was set to 2024-2029, but it is not mentioned at all in the current one, as the landslide risk was defined as only "medium.



random_user_name said:


> Isn't hogging the left lane a common issue in Norway? It seems much more prevalent than in other countries, which is strange, because if I understand correctly, overtaking from the right is prohibited? The worst happens on 3-lane carriageways, there's literally nobody driving in the right lane. What's the point of having the third lane then, if it's only used as an extension for on/off ramps?


Overtaking on the right is prohibited, but it does not seem to be strictly enforced, at least not in urban areas with heavy traffic. Carriageways with three lanes or more mostly exists over shorter sections in cities in Norway, or on steep hills, and normally they are not through-lanes, which explains their unpopularity. People are lazy and don't want to change lanes too often. Outside the cities four-lane roads are mostly a rather new thing in Norway, and my impression is actually that people are better at staying at the right than they used to be.


----------



## abedidabedu

ChrisZwolle said:


> An underground directional T interchange is recommended for E16 / E18 west of Oslo:


Wasn't there news about a problem with E6 crossing under the river in Sandvika because of difficult geology a while ago? Or am I confusing it with Lysaker?


----------



## Tronni

abedidabedu said:


> Wasn't there news about a problem with E6 crossing under the river in Sandvika because of difficult geology a while ago? Or am I confusing it with Lysaker?


No, you're right. 








E18 Vestkorridoren: Det kan bli krevende å bygge tunnel under Sandvikselva


Vegvesenet lyser ut seismiske undersøkelser langs deler av den nye traseen. Hvordan ser det egentlig ut under Sandvikselva?




www.veier24.no


----------



## Ni3lS

Any recommendations for a toll tag provider for Norway?  I heard that some are not ideal for tourists because you may need a Norwegian bank account.





__





Obtain a discount with a toll tag







www.autopass.no


----------



## Rob73

Ni3lS said:


> Any recommendations for a toll tag provider for Norway?  I heard that some are not ideal for tourists because you may need a Norwegian bank account.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obtain a discount with a toll tag
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.autopass.no


It's not worth getting one, just drive they will send you the invoice in the post.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

I agree, just wait for the invoice to be mailed to your house.


----------



## Ni3lS

Hmm. But I understood there are several advantages, especially assuming they will issue a separate invoice for each separate toll gate passing. If something get's lost in the mail or for whatever reason you cannot pay in time, there will be quite some issues I can imagine. I know my parents had a bunch of issues with German parking tickets. I like the idea of paperless / having transparency via an app.

I also understood that you get a 20% discount on all Norwegian tolls and can get a 50% discount on ferries with a separate agreement. I think there may also be discounts for the Oresund bridge and Ferry to Puttgarden.


----------



## Suburbanist

Ni3lS said:


> Hmm. But I understood there are several advantages, especially assuming they will issue a separate invoice for each separate toll gate passing. If something get's lost in the mail or for whatever reason you cannot pay in time, there will be quite some issues I can imagine. I know my parents had a bunch of issues with German parking tickets. I like the idea of paperless / having transparency via an app.
> 
> I also understood that you get a 20% discount on all Norwegian tolls and can get a 50% discount on ferries with a separate agreement. I think there may also be discounts for the Oresund bridge and Ferry to Puttgarden.


Check [:de]Maut Norwegen - Autopass bequem online kaufen | Tolltickets[:en]Toll in Norway - Settle your toll now with the AutoPass Box[:fr]Péages en Norvège – Réservervez-vous votre péage maintenant avec le badge AutoPass . They have a good reputation for rental boxes.


----------



## Ni3lS

If I'm not mistaken some of the operators offer them for sale for 20 euros. I'll do some more research and report back what I ended up choosing  Any further tips of course highly appreciated


----------



## Ingenioren

Gsus said:


> Sadly, it seems that in Oslos current political climate, an expasion of this intersection will be viewed as an increase of capasity that is not welcomed. The Trondheim-politicians seems to be more progressive than Oslo and Bergen in these cases. All road-projects are balically "impossible" in the two later cities, with MDG behind the wheel on transport-issues, and a Labour-party who has abdicated in these issues.


Ideally we would have a bypass of Oslo completely outside city limits, i would be quite happy with a proper 80km/h road in the rough corridor of Rv22.


----------



## The Wild Boy

Speaking of Oslo Bypass, have there been any plans for an outer bypass of Oslo? I'm assuming for Truck - Transit traffic. 

How is the current one holding from a traffic perspective? I see parts of the bypass go through the suburbs of Oslo, instead of bypassing them.


----------



## Ingenioren

2x2 with a really low speed limit so overtaking is risky 💲💲

Big advantage of E18 is the bus lane (if you drive an EV)


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

Due to market disruptions caused by the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Nye Veier postpones the following tender processes:

E6 Berkåk-Vindåsliene (Trøndelag)
E6 Sørelva-Borkamo (Nordland)
E6 Storhove – Øyer (Innlandet, pre-qualification )






Utsetter konkurranser | Nye Veier AS







www.nyeveier.no





Nye Veier has also submitted their impact assessment for Gyllan - Kvål for public consultation / hearing:





Konsekvensutredning | Nye Veier AS







www.nyeveier.no





Alternatives of the southern part:


----------



## Tronni

The municipality of Bamble (where I live) is currently planning to fix the road between Sundby and Ris (Fv3352).








OpenStreetMap


OpenStreetMap is a map of the world, created by people like you and free to use under an open license.




www.openstreetmap.org




Currently the road is narrow and unsuitable for trucks and badly suited for rerouting in case of emergency. Most of the traffic uses Fv 352 from Langesund to Stathelle, but if something were to happen on the road between Fv3350 and Rv354 for extended periods of time, traffic to and from Langesund and most of Stathelle wouldn't have any real alternative to use.

Some Google Maps shots of the road:








Google Maps


Finn lokale virksomheter, vis kart og få veibeskrivelser i Google Maps.




www.google.com












Google Maps


Finn lokale virksomheter, vis kart og få veibeskrivelser i Google Maps.




www.google.com












Google Maps


Finn lokale virksomheter, vis kart og få veibeskrivelser i Google Maps.




www.google.com












Google Maps


Finn lokale virksomheter, vis kart og få veibeskrivelser i Google Maps.




www.google.com












Google Maps


Finn lokale virksomheter, vis kart og få veibeskrivelser i Google Maps.




www.google.com





The plan is to construct a new road with either a long bridge or a short bridge + tunnel solution to bypass the hairpin turn and climb up from Tangvall to Fjellstad, or just widen the current road with some alignment adjustments. The last solution seems to be the preferred one, as it will destroy less nature and won't have tunnels or larger bridges to maintain. A part of the plan was also to realign the road to go from Tangvall to Svartorkjerr (rest area on the old E18) instead of the current intersection at Ris. However, simply upgrading the old road was deemed the best solution here as well.










The new road will follow the Hø2 standard, so it will be 7,5 metres wide. The current road is 6 m wide at the widest point, and +- 3 at the narrowest.


----------



## abedidabedu

I'm guessing the people of Langesund prefer the bridge/tunnel alternative with better connection to E18? I can see that today it's faster to drive all the way up to Heistad before jumping on the future motorway. Would guess both Stathelle and Brevik was interested in reducing the traffic going though. The traffic on fv352 isn't that high south of fv3350, only 2700 aadt, so a better connection to E18 would probably have limited use though. Vegvesenet probably doesn't see the benefits in throwing money on a road that isn't going to change peoples route choices. Does the towns of Langesund and Stathelle work as satelite towns for Porsgrunn/Skien or do they work as proper towns with mostly local commuting?


----------



## Tronni

Langesund and Stathelle are mostly satellite towns for Porsgrunn/Skien, yes. The primary function of the road seems to be a good alternative in case of emergency, at least that's what it is being presented as. Since this is a county road I don't think Vegvesenet is involved at all really. There are many hiking trails in the area which will be affected by either alternative, that might help tip the scales a bit. Other than that, I don't think the people of Langesund or Stathelle have a strong opinion about which alternative is chosen.


----------



## Tronni

The construction of E8 Ramfjord officially started today.

Byggestart for Tromsøs nye innfartsveg


----------



## ChrisZwolle

The new alignment of E8 will cross the Ramfjord by a 870 meter long bridge, with a 5 x 120 meter main span and a shipping clearance of 20 meters. The bridge will be on an incline from 33 to 8 meters above sea level.

I found the design:


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Six contractors have pre-qualified for the next large Rogfast contract (The 26.5 km Boknafjord Tunnel of E39):

Skanska Norge AS
NCC Norge AS
JV OHA Tunnel, composed of OBRASCÓN HUARTE LAIN S.A , Hyundai Engineering & Construction Co, Ltd and Aldesa, SA
China Communications Construction Company Ltd.
JV Implenia Norge AS and Stangeland Maskin AS
JV Webuild S.p.A. and Acciona Construcción, S.A

The contract value is estimated at 3.5 billion NOK / € 350 million.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Skanska is the winner of a large contract to upgrade E18 west of Oslo (Vestkorridoren). This is the Strand - Ramstadsletta contract, which mainly involves the Høvik Tunnel. E18 will be built on a new alignment with six lanes, including a largely tunneled route. 

The contract value is around 2.9 billion NOK (€ 290 million). Construction will start in the summer of 2022 and will be completed by 2029.

The other bidders were Impresa Pizzarotti and Obrascòn Huarte Lain.

Location: OpenStreetMap


----------



## Hansadyret1908

ChrisZwolle said:


> Six contractors have pre-qualified for the next large Rogfast contract (The 26.5 km Boknafjord Tunnel of E39):
> 
> Skanska Norge AS
> NCC Norge AS
> JV OHA Tunnel, composed of OBRASCÓN HUARTE LAIN S.A , Hyundai Engineering & Construction Co, Ltd and Aldesa, SA
> China Communications Construction Company Ltd.
> JV Implenia Norge AS and Stangeland Maskin AS
> JV Webuild S.p.A. and Acciona Construcción, S.A
> 
> The contract value is estimated at 3.5 billion NOK / € 350 million.


Seems to me that the chinese company is always trying but almost never win anything.


----------



## Ingenioren

Shouldn't even be allowed to participate.


----------



## MattiG

Ingenioren said:


> Shouldn't even be allowed to participate.


The Sichuan Road and Bridge Group was selected to build Hålogalandbrua about a decade ago. The project delayed a year (which is quite common, I believe). Are there other experiences on Chinese companies to win a deal?


----------



## ChrisZwolle

The Sichuan Road and Bridge Group also built the bridge of Fv. 17 across the Beitstadsund near Steinkjer. This project was also behind schedule.


----------



## Ingenioren

The bridge deck of the Hardangerbridge was shipped from Shanghai.


----------



## Rob73

Ingenioren said:


> Shouldn't even be allowed to participate.


why, Chinese infrastructure is really impressive, if you’ve ever been to China it never ceases to amaze at what they have done.


----------



## Ingenioren

The whole gulag thing aubviously.


----------



## Rob73

Ingenioren said:


> The whole gulag thing aubviously.


That’s not Norways problem. Besides Norway has some pretty dark post World War Two history which is just as awful, people still use Norwegian products and services.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Rob73 said:


> why, Chinese infrastructure is really impressive, if you’ve ever been to China it never ceases to amaze at what they have done.


The west could build such infrastructure as well if they wanted to. In fact, many of those huge Chinese bridges are quite simple designs, such as truss decks for suspension bridges, which have been out of fashion in Europe for decades. 

The biggest difference is the amount of money which they spend on infrastructure. The cost-benefit ratio of many Chinese infrastructure projects in the interior is probably quite poor. High cost vs. low usage. The debt of the toll roads is escalating every year, as revenue doesn't follow sufficiently. Or the decision to build expressways and high-speed rail to all counties irrespective of actual demand or development. It remains to be seen if they are able to maintain all of it and if they really can attain a 60 - 100 year service life, especially with the prevalence of 'tofu-dreg' style construction practices. .


----------



## The Wild Boy

ChrisZwolle said:


> The west could build such infrastructure as well if they wanted to. In fact, many of those huge Chinese bridges are quite simple designs, such as truss decks for suspension bridges, which have been out of fashion in Europe for decades.
> 
> The biggest difference is the amount of money which they spend on infrastructure. The cost-benefit ratio of many Chinese infrastructure projects in the interior is probably quite poor. High cost vs. low usage. The debt of the toll roads is escalating every year, as revenue doesn't follow sufficiently. Or the decision to build expressways and high-speed rail to all counties irrespective of actual demand or development. It remains to be seen if they are able to maintain all of it and if they really can attain a 60 - 100 year service life, especially with the prevalence of 'tofu-dreg' style construction practices. .


No hate towards China, i gotta admit that they have impressive infrastructure.

But then again as you say, most of it is merely done to show China on the global map as some mastermind country in building large scale motorway - railway projects in quick rates.

While in reality, there's always something fishy going on, or it is something that (as you said) doesn't get the massive usage, but ends up costing a lot. Build only stuff you need, and ensure that you can benefit / profit from what you build.

Building something in an X mountainous location will make you look cool in front of everybody, but in reality, it's always different. This is also my official view on Chinese infrastructure.

From what i observed in Norway, they do like spending a little more on infrastructure, and it's a bit more too overly engineered. Lots of tunnels, underground interchanges, and what not else. Not saying that that is bad, I'm just saying that a lot of things could have been done simpler.

Then again, compared to China, Norway actually builds roads that get used, serve a purpose, and that bring benefits and profits. Let's not forget the Fishing industry that can benefit a lot from these roads as well.

Norway is also not in a rush to complete what it has envisioned sooner, unlike China that does everything to reach those "sweet" big numbers.

Some Chinese companies are actually not that bad and they have done impressive works all across Europe. Not everywhere however.


----------



## MattiG

ChrisZwolle said:


> The west could build such infrastructure as well if they wanted to. In fact, many of those huge Chinese bridges are quite simple designs, such as truss decks for suspension bridges, which have been out of fashion in Europe for decades.


Out of fashion? Does it have any significance?

The deck design of a suspension bridge is quite a delicate execise. The deck is like an aircraft wing, and it must be stiff enough to resist the torsion. The wind loads at the mountain valleys may be quite different from those ones at the sea level. Therefore, the steel truss might be much safer in the mountains, because of its aerodynamic features.

In addition, best not to confuse the design company with the construction company. Even if the Hålogaland bridge was built by a Chinese company, it was designed by companies headquartered in Norway and Denmark. BTW, the Danish one of those, COWI, was responsible for the aerodynamics analysis of the longest suspension bridge in China. Thus, the to China of not to China thinking might be more straightforward than the reality is.


----------



## Ingenioren

Rob73 said:


> That’s not Norways problem. Besides Norway has some pretty dark post World War Two history which is just as awful, people still use Norwegian products and services.


Its not particularly related to roads, but i am of the opinion that one should not support a regime with such bad human rights. There are plenty of contractors in europe who can build infrastructure just as well as any chinese company, so i see no reason why we have to use them even if we were to only consider economics. With your comparison to a thing from to past vs an ongoing issue, well if China were to change i would welcome them back into building our roads, everyone deserves an opportunity to better themselves.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

My personal opinion is that we should try to avoid getting too dependent on China, in particular avoid using advanced technology products with potential harm for the security of our society. But, boycott or sanctions are not necessarily efficient tools to improve the human rights situation in China, and in any case should have clear objectives, with a clearly communicated purpose and criteria, and be done in collaboration with other significant markets. Otherwise a boycott will have no impact other than a local feelgood effect and loss of market opportunities, loss of dialogue with the Chinese goverment, and making the Chinese people insignificantly poorer.
[OT]


Rob73 said:


> That’s not Norways problem. Besides Norway has some pretty dark post World War Two history which is just as awful, people still use Norwegian products and services.


This is really off-topic, but it would be interesting to hear what dark post World War Two history you are referring to. I mean, with modern days values and without having experienced the war ourselves, everybody today agrees that some groups got unfair treatment after WW2, in particular girls (and in practice also their children) that were sentenced and/or deported to Germany just because they had fraternized with German soldiers. But I do not see how that compares or is relevant for the situation in China today.

And, it appears as if you are no longer living in Romsdal?

[/OT]


----------



## Rob73

54°26′S 3°24′E said:


> My personal opinion is that we should try to avoid getting too dependent on China, in particular avoid using advanced technology products with potential harm for the security of our society. But, boycott or sanctions are not necessarily efficient tools to improve the human rights situation in China, and in any case should have clear objectives, with a clearly communicated purpose and criteria, and be done in collaboration with other significant markets. Otherwise a boycott will have no impact other than a local feelgood effect and loss of market opportunities, loss of dialogue with the Chinese goverment, and making the Chinese people insignificantly poorer.
> [OT]
> 
> 
> This is really off-topic, but it would be interesting to hear what dark post World War Two history you are referring to. I mean, with modern days values and without having experienced the war ourselves, everybody today agrees that some groups got unfair treatment after WW2, in particular girls (and in practice also their children) that were sentenced and/or deported to Germany just because they had fraternized with German soldiers. But I do not see how that compares or is relevant for the situation in China today.
> 
> And, it appears as if you are no longer living in Romsdal?
> 
> [/OT]


I still live in Molde, just travel a lot these days. There’s plenty of dark post war history, just ask anyone whose father was a German soldier, the treatment of those children was awful, and how about the forced sterilisation of close to 50k disabled people, that didn’t stop until 1979. Most of the sterilisations were carried out in the 70’s.


----------



## Ingenioren

That's awful, but we are in 2022, and these things still going on in China.


----------



## metasmurf

Last week the 2km long Liatindtunnelen on FV 17 in Nordland opened. It was supposed to open back in 2019 but due to several problems such as a landslide/rockfall at the southern tunnel portal and bankruptcy of a contractor the tunnel didn't open until now. Liatindtunnelen together with the adjoining shorter Olvikvasstunnelen as well as embankment and a small bridge across Olvikvatnet forms a new alignment for Fv17 avoiding the previous narrow and curvy road pron to landslides and rockfall.

Location (OSM)










The southern portal of Liatindtunnelen










The section across Olvikvatnet which was completed in 2020


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

Rob73 said:


> I still live in Molde, just travel a lot these days. There’s plenty of dark post war history, just ask anyone whose father was a German soldier, the treatment of those children was awful, and how about the forced sterilisation of close to 50k disabled people, that didn’t stop until 1979. Most of the sterilisations were carried out in the 70’s.


I do not defend this practice, but you are mixing up numbers by orders of magnitude here. In total above 40 000 people were sterilized under the 1934 law, but that includes all sterilizations during the period that law in the force. Only 900 to 2100 of those (depending on how you count) were sterilized by force. During the Quisling regime / German occupation during World War II another around 500 were sterilized, but under a different law that was abolished immedately after the war when the legal Norwegian goverment came back in power. Most of the forced sterilizations were between 1930 and 1950. Such laws were quite common around the world at the time (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_sterilization), and we have no way to change the past. In any case, I do not think the practice of this historic sterilization law or the treatment of those children in any way compares with what is going on in China today.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

There has been a landslide on E6 in Hommelvik east of Trondheim. A car was completely buried in the mud, but the person inside survived and is in hospital. E6, which is the main road between Trondheim and Northern Norway and Sweden, will probably be closed for a considerable time. There is a by-pass using the old highway, but it is not really dimensioned for the current 17 k AADT. It is unclear whether the landslide was caused by the ongoing construction work in the area to expand E6 to full motorway. Currently, the soil in Trøndelag is saturated with water, in stark contrast to south-eastern and south-western Norway which are historically dry.


























Map: Trafikkinformasjon


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

Video from the location: - Aldri opplevd lignende

The lucky / competent driver of this taxi, accelerated when he discovered the landslide and avoided the bulk of it. The car was only hit on its tail and spun around 180 degrees horizontally.









Another image of the landslide, only 10 m from a tunnel opening:









Delays of four hours were reported this afternoon, many people lost their flights. Still now, at 8:40 PM, Google maps are reporting some issues.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

Afternoons are probably going to look like this, until E6 is opened again, even if people normally using this road is asked to work from home, and commuters tend to adapt by driving during less problematic periods or taking the train etc. 

PS: The local media say that the trains are already full and leave would-be passengers behind at the stations. However, it seems like E6 will open sooner than expected, perhaps already tomorrow.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

It has also been picked up by the 'landslide blog', which is apparently one of the best sources for landslide analysis. 









Malvik: an interesting landslide on the E6 highway in Norway


On Wednesday 4 May 2022 an interesting landslide occurred at a construction site on the E6 highway near to Malvik in Norway.




blogs.agu.org


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

^^Interesting.

E6 will be closed at least until Monday. Hence, very large delays still this afternoon (at least > 2 hours from what I hear), although the jams are not as bad as the first day, obviously.


----------



## Tronni

After a recent hearing, there was overwhelming support for the Viker-alternative of E134. Both Asker and Lier municipalities prefer this alignment, which would put E134 in a long tunnel from E18 to Spikkestad. The municipal sub-plans have not been adopted yet.









E134-høring ga stort flertall for Viker-løsningen


Av 70 innspill til Kommunedelplan for E134 Dagslett-E18 mellom Lier og Asker var det som ventet et klart flertall for Viker-løsningen.




www.vegvesen.no





The new interchange between E18 and E134:











The new Viker corridor in blue:










Video:


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Norway may be the only country in Europe where long tunnel alternatives are the most feasible. Elsewhere long tunnel alternatives are often discarded due to the excessive cost, or only pursued after political pressure instead of a regular cost/benefit or environmental impact vs. cost study.


----------



## Kjello0

Wrong choice imo. They should plan ahead for a future motorway towards Kongsberg/Bergen/Stavanger going north of Drammen. The two lane Strømsås tunnel south of the city is also at capacity. So a twin tube tunnel just north of the city would relieve that of some traffic as well. With that in mind, the Huseby/Vitbank options would be far better. I see that Statens Vegvesen recommends the Vitbank option. So hopefully one ends up with the best solution.


----------



## abedidabedu

If a future motorway towards Kongsberg would be buildt, it doesn't really matter where they put it compared to this alignment. Three way interchanges are more flexible and space efficient compared to four way interchanges, so the new alignment westards can be buildt wherever is best. E134 traffic will then run along E18 for a few kms. If that becomes a problem then they will just build a few extra filter lanes for that stretch. 

What's the benefit of E134 bypassing north of Drammen? It must cross the river anyway, and in todays alignment south of the river it serves Mjøndalen and all the other towns well. It's probably cheaper to expand to 4 lanes on the existing road aswell compared to building a new road from scratch.


----------



## suburbicide

ChrisZwolle said:


> Norway may be the only country in Europe where long tunnel alternatives are the most feasible. Elsewhere long tunnel alternatives are often discarded due to the excessive cost, or only pursued after political pressure instead of a regular cost/benefit or environmental impact vs. cost study.


I think the difference is that political pressure and NIMBYism more often win in Norway. This alternative was the worst from a cost/benefit perspective, and I doubt it does well from a CO2-emissions perspective either.


----------



## Gsus

abedidabedu said:


> What's the benefit of E134 bypassing north of Drammen? It must cross the river anyway, and in todays alignment south of the river it serves Mjøndalen and all the other towns well. It's probably cheaper to expand to 4 lanes on the existing road aswell compared to building a new road from scratch.


The big problem is the intersection at Bangeløkka in Drammen, where E134 leaves E18 via a roundabout after the ramps. Although there are filter-lanes past the roundabout for all traffic heading to/from Oslo, there are still congestions, which during rush hour may lead to blocking all the way up on E18 with a short deceleration lane into a 100-zone. I think it has been deemed an "impossible" task to rebuild this intersection with direct ramps to E134. That said, the "Lierdiagonalen", as it was called some years ago with the planned new alignment north of Drammen is on hold, maybe forever. The only firm plans is the expansion of Strømsåstunnelen. Hopefully, two westbound lanes may reduce the jams created where the lane from the roundabout merges with the filter-lane from E18. 

A zoning-plan for a new tunnel was made a few years back. Heres a video showing the proposal:


----------



## ChrisZwolle

It's difficult to read the signs, but is this on the new Kongsberg bypass of E134?


----------



## suburbicide

Yes, the location is here: Ny E134 · Ny E134, 3615 Kongsberg


----------



## Rob73

ChrisZwolle said:


> Norway may be the only country in Europe where long tunnel alternatives are the most feasible. Elsewhere long tunnel alternatives are often discarded due to the excessive cost, or only pursued after political pressure instead of a regular cost/benefit or environmental impact vs. cost study.


theres some pretty significant tunnels in Switzerland and Austria.


----------



## abedidabedu

Gsus said:


> The big problem is the intersection at Bangeløkka in Drammen, where E134 leaves E18 via a roundabout after the ramps. Although there are filter-lanes past the roundabout for all traffic heading to/from Oslo, there are still congestions, which during rush hour may lead to blocking all the way up on E18 with a short deceleration lane into a 100-zone. I think it has been deemed an "impossible" task to rebuild this intersection with direct ramps to E134. That said, the "Lierdiagonalen", as it was called some years ago with the planned new alignment north of Drammen is on hold, maybe forever. The only firm plans is the expansion of Strømsåstunnelen. Hopefully, two westbound lanes may reduce the jams created where the lane from the roundabout merges with the filter-lane from E18.
> 
> A zoning-plan for a new tunnel was made a few years back. Heres a video showing the proposal:


I have looked into the traffic data avalable for this intersection at Bangeløkka. There is no data for the aadt on the sliplane from E18 North to E134, but I managed to estimate it to around 6000. We can expect around 500-600 cars per hour at a maximum. The zoning plan that you linked with the expantion to two lanes eastwards on E134 should be enough for the traffic to flow smothly through the sliplane. 

A larger problem on the other hand is the traffic from E18N turning left at the roundabout towards Drammen. I estimated this traffic to 8000 aadt. This is the traffic that mainly is creating the congestion, and the E18N->E134 traffic adds to it creating dangerous queues onto E18. It doesn't seem like they want to expand this entrance to the roundabout too two left turning lanes in the plan you sent. It seems like the congestion reaching E18 is here to stay even if they expand E134 too 4 lanes...


----------



## Kjello0

abedidabedu said:


> If a future motorway towards Kongsberg would be buildt, it doesn't really matter where they put it compared to this alignment. Three way interchanges are more flexible and space efficient compared to four way interchanges, so the new alignment westards can be buildt wherever is best. E134 traffic will then run along E18 for a few kms. If that becomes a problem then they will just build a few extra filter lanes for that stretch.
> 
> What's the benefit of E134 bypassing north of Drammen? It must cross the river anyway, and in todays alignment south of the river it serves Mjøndalen and all the other towns well. It's probably cheaper to expand to 4 lanes on the existing road aswell compared to building a new road from scratch.


It's about making an option for through traffic to go past Drammen without mixing with existing (local) traffic.
E18 between the existing Kjellstad junction and the Bangløkka junction has an AADT between 50 and 60 000. On a four lane road. The queues sometimes extends across the Drammen river in rush hour. And if a new bypass takes off 8-12000 AADT from the Drammen bridge as you suggest, it would dramatically reduce the queues on E18 as well. 
My general opinion is that we should aim towards a national road network where one can bypass cities without risking congestions. And look into better public transport to lower congestion in the cities themselves.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

Video of from surveillance camera in the Stavsjøfjell tunnel of the E6 showing how the taxi barely avoided the landslide last week. 








Trøndelag: På vei ut av tunnelen - så kommer skredet - VGTV


Statens vegvesens overvåkningskamera ved tunnelåpningen av Stavsjøtunnelen fanget opp denne hendelsen onsdag 4. mai.




www.vgtv.no


----------



## Tronni

The toll proposition for fv. 353 between Rugtvedt and Surtebogen is ready to be voted on in Stortinget.









Ny fv. 353 mellom Rugtvedt og Surtebogen i Bamble klar for Stortingsbehandling


Prosjektet gjelder bygging av 3,9 km tofelts fylkesvei med forsterket midtoppmerking i ny trasé.




www.veier24.no





"Gassveien" - fv. 353 between Rugtvedt and Surtebogen - has been planned since the 70's. The road connects many industrial areas with E18, doesn't follow current road standards and is accident-prone. The new road will be 3,9 kilometres long. 











This is the situation today:










Some parts of the road is narrow and close to houses.










Other parts are steep and twisty.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Oslo rush hour before the long weekend:


----------



## ChrisZwolle

E39 just west of Kristiansand.

Location: Google Maps


----------



## ChrisZwolle

A bridge of E6 at Badderen in the far north was damaged by a flood last night. This is the only bridge in the region, traffic has to detour via Finland. Statens Vegvesen is going to build a temporary bridge, but it could take a couple of weeks to get that done.










I believe this bridge crossing now requires a 700 kilometer detour?


----------



## ChrisZwolle

The 3,850 meter long Flo Tunnel (Flotunnelen) opened to traffic on 8 April.









Her jublar skuleborna for flunkande ny tunnel


Ein rasfarleg skuleveg er blitt tryggare etter at tunnelen til 600 millionar opna i dag. – No slepp vi å vere redde, seier skuleborna.




www.nrk.no





It is an access to the hamlet of Flo (population: 75). It's not far east of Stryn.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

Norway at its "best". The hamlet has produced some pretty decent football players, though, at least on a Norwegian scale.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

54°26′S 3°24′E said:


> Due to market disruptions caused by the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Nye Veier postpones the following tender processes:
> 
> E6 Berkåk-Vindåsliene (Trøndelag)
> E6 Sørelva-Borkamo (Nordland)
> E6 Storhove – Øyer (Innlandet, pre-qualification )
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Utsetter konkurranser | Nye Veier AS
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nyeveier.no
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nye Veier has also submitted their impact assessment for Gyllan - Kvål for public consultation / hearing:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Konsekvensutredning | Nye Veier AS
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nyeveier.no
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Alternatives of the southern part:
> View attachment 3035557


Nye Veier has published a revised plan for the delayed tenders:

Storhove-Øyer (Innlandet) – ongoing tender
Berkåk-Vindåsliene (Trøndelag) - to be opened mid-September.
Sørelva-Borkamo (Nordland) - to be opened in January
In addition, tenders for smaller projects on Rv 13 and E136 is to open in November.

At the same time, Nye Veier says that E39 Mandal-Lyngdal, E18/E39 Ytre Ring and E39 Bue Ålgård will be off the table for the moment. 

Unsurprisingly, the current government is pushing for lower standards and design velocities of new highways, while wasting money on symbolic policies. I fear E6 Kvål - Gyllan will be a victim.


----------



## random_user_name

ChrisZwolle said:


> The 3,850 meter long Flo Tunnel (Flotunnelen) opened to traffic on 8 April.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Her jublar skuleborna for flunkande ny tunnel
> 
> 
> Ein rasfarleg skuleveg er blitt tryggare etter at tunnelen til 600 millionar opna i dag. – No slepp vi å vere redde, seier skuleborna.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nrk.no
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is an access to the hamlet of Flo (population: 75). It's not far east of Stryn.


Am I missing something here? Because on surface, building 4km tunnel for 75 people sounds utterly ridiculous.


----------



## Kjello0

You're not missing much. Simply politics. Proposing that people shouldn't be able to live where families have lived for generations is political suicide. Especially in the most rural area of Norway.


----------



## Ingenioren

random_user_name said:


> Am I missing something here? Because on surface, building 4km tunnel for 75 people sounds utterly ridiculous.


This is the reason we cant have nice things (decent road network where actually more than a handful people live)


----------



## ChrisZwolle

The temporary bridge of E6 at Badderen in the far north will open on Wednesday. Not bad!


----------



## Kjello0

Ingenioren said:


> This is the reason we cant have nice things (decent road network where actually more than a handful people live)


It's financed by the county though. So it doesn't directly affect anyone else than those living in Vestland county. However, I'm sure the money would be better spent on for instance the Bergen Light Rail network.


----------



## Ingenioren

Exactly, there are many places in Vestland county with a large number of cars and really bad roads, the Bergen bypass is not particularly good road for example.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Are roads in Eastern Norway worth it? I'm considering a trip across Rikskystveien, however there are a number of options of how to get there. I've already driven E6 and Rv. 3, so I'm thinking about an alternative route farther east, either;


Sälen - Drevsjø - Røros - Støren - Trondheim
Idre - Drevsjø - Røros - Stjørdal.
Funäsdalen - Røros -Støren / Stjørdal

I'm not looking for big hikes in that area, but are these routes scenic or just a waste of time?


----------



## Kjello0

Never driven there myself, but two of my colleagues have always highlighted the Fv27 Venabygdfjellet. Which is a part of the Scenic Routes scheme. It's a small detour when driving Gudbrandsdalen (E6). Though going north, one can make the turn east towards Alvdal (Rv3) rather than reentering E6 at Hjerkinn. That if one really wants to visit Røros. Which in itself is worth a visit.

From Røros it's about the same driving time via Fv30/E6 and via Fv705. Personally I would have taken Fv705 in this case. But that's simply due to not having driven there before.


----------



## MattiG

Kjello0 said:


> Never driven there myself, but two of my colleagues have always highlighted the Fv27 Venabygdfjellet. Which is a part of the Scenic Routes scheme.


Another option is the Fv2204 Friisvegen, which runs parallel to the Fv27. A nice connection between the E6 and the Rv3.

Basically, the roads in lowlands close to the Norwegian/Swedish border run through endless forests. It is a matter of taste if they are scenic or not.

My rule of thumb on Norwegian roads: The more curves on a map, the more scenic it is. Additional rule: Roads on treeless highlands are very scenic.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

The area between Drevsjø and Røros, east of Østerdalen (fv30/rv3) and west of the Femunden lake is not known by too many Norwegians, as it is quite far from all major cities. However, I was quite surprised of the beauty of the area when I visited only a couple of years ago (but during wintertime). If you take Fv 26, local landmarks that you can see along the highway include Sålekinna and Elgspiggen. Don't expect the Alps, but I thinkt it is a fairly nice area to hike in. Using Fv28 you of course see more of Femund itself. Sølen is the mightiest massif in the area, but you need to hike a bit too see it, so it is a rather well hidden treasure.

Upper Funäsdalen is dominated by ski-lifts and not very exciting until you reach the Norwegian border and can see the Vigeln mountains. However, if you take a detour you can reach the public highway of Sweden, Flatruet. I am assuming the view from there is quite nice, although I have not been there myself: The Road Over Flatruet – Sweden’s Highest Road - TravelBlogEurope.com. South of Funäsdalen I do not know that region on the Swedish side of the border too well. Expect a lot of forests outside the Sylan /Sylarna range.

On the other hand, I have a high affinity to the Røros area and the Røros mining town itself (one of the first UNESCO heritage sites of Norway). Thanks to extensive historic mining, parts of the area is indeed treeless. Travel back in time in Røros

Røros-Stjørdal can either be driven via Gauldalen (Fv 30 / E6) or via Tydal / Selbu (Fv705). The former (Fv30) is a rather winding valley road, the valley shifting between being narrow and having enough space for some farms, the latter (Fv705) climbs up to 920 m where you have a quite good view of the surrounding area, including the Sylan range to the east,before continuing along another valley down to the town of Selbu. It is a matter of taste what you prefer, but if you anyway are going through Trondheim on the return maybe you could try Tydal/Selbu. But again, don't expect anything super-dramatic. The best treasures will also here require some hiking, e.g. Henfallet, the tallest waterfall of Trøndelag.








Elgspiggen








Sålekinna








Sølen (I think you need to get off the road to properly see this massif)








Henfossen (require some hiking or biking)


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

PS: Further to the west of Drevsjø, many people consider Østerdalen / Rv 3, despites its efficiency when traveling from Oslo to Trondheim, to be among the most boring roads of Norway. But also here there are hidden treasures, for instance the Jutulhogget ("Troll (axe) cut") canyon, with a readily available viewpoint just a few minutes off the main road








Jutulhogget · Unnamed Road, 2560, 2560, Norway


★★★★★ · Tourist attraction




goo.gl


----------



## riiga

54°26′S 3°24′E said:


> Upper Funäsdalen is dominated by ski-lifts and not very exciting until you reach the Norwegian border and can see the Vigeln mountains. However, if you take a detour you can reach the public highway of Sweden, Flatruet. I am assuming the view from there is quite nice, although I have not been there myself: The Road Over Flatruet – Sweden’s Highest Road - TravelBlogEurope.com. South of Funäsdalen I do not know that region on the Swedish side of the border too well. Expect a lot of forests outside the Sylan /Sylarna range.


Flatruet is worth driving, I was there last summer. Riksväg 84 south of Funäsdalen is quite boring, just lots of forest, some lakes, etc. Nowhere near as scenic as Norway.


----------



## MattiG

riiga said:


> Flatruet is worth driving, I was there last summer. Riksväg 84 south of Funäsdalen is quite boring, just lots of forest, some lakes, etc. Nowhere near as scenic as Norway.


It is interesting that there are not many scenic roads following the watershed of the Scandinavian mountain range, and both of them are quite short roads in Sweden: Flatruet, and Vildmarksvägen more to the north.

The three most typical sights at the inland road network in Norway, Sweden, and Finland are a forest, a forest, and a forest.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

There is not many roads along the watersheds for many reasons, though. It would be a lot of up and down, or alternatively expensive bridges and tunnels, and the roads would not connect anything of importance. That is why most interregional highways of Scandinavia follow valleys and then crosses a watershed /pass before entering a new valley. 

Looking at the map below, it can be seen that most of the border between north of the area we discussed (Femunden/Funäsdalen) is without forests, but as already stated, highways tend to follow the valleys most of the distance where forests (green and light green) typically dominate.


----------



## Rob73

ChrisZwolle said:


> The 3,850 meter long Flo Tunnel (Flotunnelen) opened to traffic on 8 April.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Her jublar skuleborna for flunkande ny tunnel
> 
> 
> Ein rasfarleg skuleveg er blitt tryggare etter at tunnelen til 600 millionar opna i dag. – No slepp vi å vere redde, seier skuleborna.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nrk.no
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is an access to the hamlet of Flo (population: 75). It's not far east of Stryn.


I'm sure it would have been much cheaper to buy out all the houses in the village and relocate the people to Stryn. This is a massive abuse of public funds which will never be paid back by those 75 people.


----------



## Tronni

Rob73 said:


> I'm sure it would have been much cheaper to buy out all the houses in the village and relocate the people to Stryn. This is a massive abuse of public funds which will never be paid back by those 75 people.


I don't follow when people say this. The county is ultimately responsible for which projects they want to prioritise. Therefore it seems weird to call it abuse of public funds when they are used correctly. Sure, it's a bad investment, but not abuse of public funds. 

I also loathe the idea of people being directly responsible for paying for such an investment. "Yes, the road to your village is dangerous, but you won't pay it back alone, so you it won't be fixed."


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

There are a lot of dangerous roads in Norway. Very few are killed by landslides/avelanches. Looking at the priorities of the government, it seems like it is far worse to be killed by a landslide or an avelanche than other traffic accidents.


----------



## Rob73

Tronni said:


> I don't follow when people say this. The county is ultimately responsible for which projects they want to prioritise. Therefore it seems weird to call it abuse of public funds when they are used correctly. Sure, it's a bad investment, but not abuse of public funds.
> 
> I also loathe the idea of people being directly responsible for paying for such an investment. "Yes, the road to your village is dangerous, but you won't pay it back alone, so you it won't be fixed."


There’s been several instances like this where minuscule populations have had expensive links built for them, when you do a cost benefit analysis it doesn’t work, the money spent on these selfish people would be better spent for the greater good elsewhere.


----------



## Nikolaj

Rob73 said:


> There’s been several instances like this where minuscule populations have had expensive links built for them, when you do a cost benefit analysis it doesn’t work, the money spent on these selfish people would be better spent for the greater good elsewhere.


You can't blame it in the locals. They fight for what they think is good for them. Everyone will do that. But you can blame it in the politicans who made the bad decision.


----------



## Rob73

Nikolaj said:


> You can't blame it in the locals. They fight for what they think is good for them. Everyone will do that. But you can blame it in the politicans who made the bad decision.


It's only 75 people, hardly worth any politician worrying about.


----------



## MattiG

Rob73 said:


> It's only 75 people, hardly worth any politician worrying about.


In this place, yes. 

But there are a zillion of similar places, and 75 zillions potentially is pretty big number of votes to potentially lose.

You need to understand the big picture, too. The politics in Norway is pretty province-oriented.


----------



## Tronni

Rob73 said:


> It's only 75 people, hardly worth any politician worrying about.


A politician, especially in places with a spread out population, will get pushback for saying that a place is too small or undeserving of a secure road. This will also affect other, slightly larger villages or towns questioning if they're big enough for such an investment. Which will lead to them likely voting for a party that can guarantee it. 

The possibility to live in low populated areas, without being neglected in terms of safe infrastructure, is a position that's popular across the whole Norwegian political spectrum.

In other words, a Norwegian politician caring about small places is a good strategy.


----------



## Suburbanist

Tronni said:


> A politician, especially in places with a spread out population, will get pushback for saying that a place is too small or undeserving of a secure road. This will also affect other, slightly larger villages or towns questioning if they're big enough for such an investment. Which will lead to them likely voting for a party that can guarantee it.
> 
> The possibility to live in low populated areas, without being neglected in terms of safe infrastructure, is a position that's popular across the whole Norwegian political spectrum.
> 
> In other words, a Norwegian politician caring about small places is a good strategy.


Wouldn't a big city party be able to break that mold?


----------



## Rob73

MattiG said:


> In this place, yes.
> 
> But there are a zillion of similar places, and 75 zillions potentially is pretty big number of votes to potentially lose.
> 
> You need to understand the big picture, too. The politics in Norway is pretty province-oriented.


I understand the politics, I’ve been living here since 2006, I also live in a smallish area Aukra kommune, the problem is some of these boondoggles just defy all logic. Sometimes the authourities need to say no.


----------



## Kjello0

Rob73 said:


> Sometimes the authourities need to say no.


Giving the Centre Party free votes in the next election.


----------



## Kjello0

RIP all motorway projects that haven't yet been approved.

Revidert nasjonalbudsjett: Enige om å nedskalere store motorveisprosjekter

In short, in the budget negotiations the Socialist Left Party got through downscaling future road projects. And especially future motorway projects. So that probably means an end to every project that haven't been approved yet. And an end to speedlimits above 100 km/h. I won't be surprised if these projects are downscaled to 2(3) lane roads with 90 km/h speed limit.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

Hopefully they will not be reelected in three years time, but already the new government has done a lot of damage (and not only regarding highways).


----------



## Rob73

Kjello0 said:


> RIP all motorway projects that haven't yet been approved.
> 
> Revidert nasjonalbudsjett: Enige om å nedskalere store motorveisprosjekter
> 
> In short, in the budget negotiations the Socialist Left Party got through downscaling future road projects. And especially future motorway projects. So that probably means an end to every project that haven't been approved yet. And an end to speedlimits above 100 km/h. I won't be surprised if these projects are downscaled to 2(3) lane roads with 90 km/h speed limit.


The people voted for these idiots, although I haven’t meet anyone who will raise there hand and say they did.


----------



## Gsus

Kjello0 said:


> RIP all motorway projects that haven't yet been approved.
> 
> Revidert nasjonalbudsjett: Enige om å nedskalere store motorveisprosjekter
> 
> In short, in the budget negotiations the Socialist Left Party got through downscaling future road projects. And especially future motorway projects. So that probably means an end to every project that haven't been approved yet. And an end to speedlimits above 100 km/h. I won't be surprised if these projects are downscaled to 2(3) lane roads with 90 km/h speed limit.


I hope, and don`t think it`s as dark as it might seem, although it`s no doubt that SV wants all motorway-projects scrapped (although they`ve said they just want the AADT-limit raised to 15000). I think a lot of the "noise" on this is the medias angle on the case, basically presenting it as an all or nothing case. It`s still very vague on what the assessment of downscaling in practice will mean, and to what projects.

The goverment did order an assessment from the Road directorate on from what level of AADT motorways are to be built. That assessment is supposed to be delivered tomorrow, so hopefully we will see some news on the professional opinion. From earlier statements from the transport minister, the AADT-level will probably be adjusted according to this, and that may have consequences for all projects with ongoing planning. I`m guessing the level is raised to somewhere between 12 and 15 000 AADT. The opening down to 6000 as it is today will most definitly be (a short) history.

My best guess for projects that will most definitely be revised (based on low AADT today):
E6 Nedgård-Vindåsliene (at least partly, one section is planned for tender in a very short time and may not be affected)
E6 Korporalsbrua-Støren
E134 Saggrenda-Elgsjø-Gvammen
E39-sections between Kristiansand and Bergen, with some exceptions

Living dangerous:
E6 Åsen-Mære (at least partly)
E6 Støren-Kvål
E6 Moelv-Lillehammer
E16 Kløfta-Kongsvinger (at least along the corridor wanted by Nye Veier)
E18 Bamble-Tvedestrand (at least partly)
Rv. 4 Hunndalen-Mjøsbrua
Rv. 25 Hamar-Løten

I feel safer on these, but you`ll never know:
E18 Arendal-Grimstad
E18 Retvet-Vinterbro
E16 Skaret-Hønefoss

I feel very safe on these projects remaining motorway or four lane:
E134 Oslofjordforbindelsen
E134 Daglett-E18 intersection

The governments largest party (but maybe not the dominating?) , the Labour party has a history of following professionals recomendstions, and I do not think they will let SV get anything in this matter. Also significant parts of the Centre party wants motorways, just as long as they stay mostly of agricultural land.


----------



## Rob73

Gsus said:


> The governments largest party (but maybe not the dominating?) , the Labour party has a history of following professionals recomendstions, and I do not think they will let SV get anything in this matter. Also significant parts of the Centre party wants motorways, just as long as they stay mostly of agricultural land.


A lot of the agricultural land where I live, which is a rural area, has been turned over to growing hay, the livestock are gone.


----------



## threo2k

I`m feeling so ashamed of my country ..


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

Gsus said:


> I hope, and don`t think it`s as dark as it might seem, although it`s no doubt that SV wants all motorway-projects scrapped (although they`ve said they just want the AADT-limit raised to 15000). I think a lot of the "noise" on this is the medias angle on the case, basically presenting it as an all or nothing case. It`s still very vague on what the assessment of downscaling in practice will mean, and to what projects.
> 
> The goverment did order an assessment from the Road directorate on from what level of AADT motorways are to be built. That assessment is supposed to be delivered tomorrow, so hopefully we will see some news on the professional opinion. From earlier statements from the transport minister, the AADT-level will probably be adjusted according to this, and that may have consequences for all projects with ongoing planning. I`m guessing the level is raised to somewhere between 12 and 15 000 AADT. The opening down to 6000 as it is today will most definitly be (a short) history.
> 
> My best guess for projects that will most definitely be revised (based on low AADT today):
> E6 Nedgård-Vindåsliene (at least partly, one section is planned for tender in a very short time and may not be affected)
> E6 Korporalsbrua-Støren
> E134 Saggrenda-Elgsjø-Gvammen
> E39-sections between Kristiansand and Bergen, with some exceptions
> 
> Living dangerous:
> E6 Åsen-Mære (at least partly)
> E6 Støren-Kvål
> E6 Moelv-Lillehammer
> E16 Kløfta-Kongsvinger (at least along the corridor wanted by Nye Veier)
> E18 Bamble-Tvedestrand (at least partly)
> Rv. 4 Hunndalen-Mjøsbrua
> Rv. 25 Hamar-Løten
> 
> I feel safer on these, but you`ll never know:
> E18 Arendal-Grimstad
> E18 Retvet-Vinterbro
> E16 Skaret-Hønefoss
> 
> I feel very safe on these projects remaining motorway or four lane:
> E134 Oslofjordforbindelsen
> E134 Daglett-E18 intersection
> 
> The governments largest party (but maybe not the dominating?) , the Labour party has a history of following professionals recomendstions, and I do not think they will let SV get anything in this matter. Also significant parts of the Centre party wants motorways, just as long as they stay mostly of agricultural land.


I really do not hope that the government goes back at looking blindly at AADT. Nedgården-Vindåslien* was prioritized over all those projects with higher AADT for a reason: A high benefit/cost ratio. That is all that should matter, IMO.

This government clearly will not last forever, having the weakest prime minister we have seen for a very long time, and a lot of these projects would probably not have been initiated within the next few years anyway. Pesonally, I am most worried about Kvål-Gyllan, which is in a crucial planning phase these days. I think certainly it anyway will be four lane, but it is more about alignement and speed limit in that case.



Rob73 said:


> A lot of the agricultural land where I live, which is a rural area, has been turned over to growing hay, the livestock are gone.


I doubt many in the Molde area is producing hay anymore. I guess you mean silage? But there is not much point with silage unless there is a cow around ;-)

Otherwise there of course is far less grazing livestock in Norway than in previous decades, which I think is a pity as a lot of former grazing areas are turning into bush.


----------



## monsieur fromage

This is great! Ruining the nature in this country because like 5 people living in gokk needs to drive 120km/t is the dumbest policy possible.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

These are the new proposed AADT limits from the road directorate:








Nye regler for vegbygging skal gi god lokal tilpasning


Vegdirektøren vil kombinere god framkommelighet med mindre naturinngrep. Det kan vi oppnå ved å myke opp regelverket for veibygging.




www.vegvesen.no













Essentially, it increases the AADT threshold for when motorways are allowed (to 8000 AADT) and required (from 15 000 AADT full width), but at the same time also opens up for motorways with lower speed limits than 110. In other words: Motorways with inferior geometry.


H1:








H2:
















H3: "Full bredde" (full width):










H3 "smal 4-felts" is narrower than this.


----------



## Rob73

54°26′S 3°24′E said:


> I doubt many in the Molde area is producing hay anymore. I guess you mean silage? But there is not much point with silage unless there is a cow around ;-)
> 
> Otherwise there of course is far less grazing livestock in Norway than in previous decades, which I think is a pity as a lot of former grazing areas are turning into bush.


I used hay because most people don't know what silage is. It's bailed and trucked out. 

A lot of city fringe grazing land is turned in suburbs.


----------



## Rob73

54°26′S 3°24′E said:


> These are the new proposed AADT limits from the road directorate:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nye regler for vegbygging skal gi god lokal tilpasning
> 
> 
> Vegdirektøren vil kombinere god framkommelighet med mindre naturinngrep. Det kan vi oppnå ved å myke opp regelverket for veibygging.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.vegvesen.no
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Essentially, it increases the AADT threshold for when motorways are allowed (to 8000 AADT) and required (from 15 000 AADT full width), but at the same time also opens up for motorways with lower speed limits than 110. In other words: Motorways with inferior geometry.
> 
> 
> H1:
> View attachment 3361070
> 
> H2:
> View attachment 3361075
> 
> View attachment 3361080
> 
> H3: "Full bredde" (full width):
> View attachment 3361089
> 
> 
> 
> H3 "smal 4-felts" is narrower than this.


Hi 1 is pointless, on open roads anything that's not divided with a central barrier shouldn't be built, its a recipe for dead motorists.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

In an ideal world, yes, but the importance of a central barrier decreases with AADT, although I believe the 6000 AADT limit is too high. Currently there are 11 000 km of national and county highways in Norway that does not even qualify for center line markings, i.e. with a width below 6 m....


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

Other than that, I still think that the most important national backbone in South Norway should be built to full motorway, in particular:

E6/Rv3 Svinesund - Elverum - Steinkjer/ -Lillehammer (-possibly Otta)
E18/E39 Oslo-Kristiansand-Stavanger(- eventually Bergen), Moa-Bergsøya, Orkanger-Klett
E134 Drammen-Bergen
This is necessary to make ground transport a viable alternative to air traffic for more user groups. Then you cannot look blindly at current traffic numbers.


----------



## Ni3lS

Just came across this video about Trollstigen this morning. Apparently an avalanche struck the visitor center and road, delaying the opening by a couple of weeks. 






We were lucky since Trollstigen only opened a week ago due to the avalanche and drove it yesterday. It was about 2 degrees celsius and raining, but nonetheless super impressive to drive this road


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

54°26′S 3°24′E said:


> In an ideal world, yes, but the importance of a central barrier decreases with AADT, although I believe the 6000 AADT limit is too high. Currently there are 11 000 km of national and county highways in Norway that does not even qualify for center line markings, i.e. with a width below 6 m....


Roads like this....


----------



## random_user_name

54°26′S 3°24′E said:


> These are the new proposed AADT limits from the road directorate:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nye regler for vegbygging skal gi god lokal tilpasning
> 
> 
> Vegdirektøren vil kombinere god framkommelighet med mindre naturinngrep. Det kan vi oppnå ved å myke opp regelverket for veibygging.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.vegvesen.no
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Essentially, it increases the AADT threshold for when motorways are allowed (to 8000 AADT) and required (from 15 000 AADT full width), but at the same time also opens up for motorways with lower speed limits than 110. In other words: Motorways with inferior geometry.
> 
> 
> H1:
> View attachment 3361070
> 
> H2:
> View attachment 3361075
> 
> View attachment 3361080
> 
> H3: "Full bredde" (full width):
> View attachment 3361089
> 
> 
> 
> H3 "smal 4-felts" is narrower than this.


I wonder how is AADT projected for road projects in Norway. Since roads induce demand, I guess if there was a plan for a continous motorway from Oslo to Bergen/Trondheim/Stavanger with Vmax=110 km/h (or better 130 km/h, like in most of Europe), the projected AADTs would be much higher. I'm just worried that because the roads are build in small streches, without any master plan, their projected AADT and cost/benefit ratio are much worse than they could've been if we looked at the entire future road network.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

Exactly


----------



## Rob73

random_user_name said:


> I wonder how is AADT projected for road projects in Norway. Since roads induce demand, I guess if there was a plan for a continous motorway from Oslo to Bergen/Trondheim/Stavanger with Vmax=110 km/h (or better 130 km/h, like in most of Europe), the projected AADTs would be much higher. I'm just worried that because the roads are build in small streches, without any master plan, their projected AADT and cost/benefit ratio are much worse than they could've been if we looked at the entire future road network.


In my mind it would mean a lot more people would drive instead of fly.


----------



## random_user_name

...which would nicely fit with current environmental agenda, since vast majority of cars will be electric soon, and planes not.


----------



## Rob73

random_user_name said:


> ...which would nicely fit with current environmental agenda, since vast majority of cars will be electric soon, and planes not.


So long as the current govt doesn't fluff up and build lower specification roads with low speed limits.


----------



## Ingenioren

54°26′S 3°24′E said:


> E134 Drammen-Bergen




Afaik, the part of E134 east of Drammen is the most important section, don't know why you left that out.


----------



## Ni3lS

Ni3lS said:


> If I'm not mistaken some of the operators offer them for sale for 20 euros. I'll do some more research and report back what I ended up choosing  Any further tips of course highly appreciated


So for those interested - in the end I went with a provider called Flyt. It cost 20 EUR (deposit) to get the tag. To be honest the instructions were a bit unclear and the user interface of the website leaves a lot to be desired. It took quite long to get the tag and customer service takes about 5-10 business days to answer an e-mail. We almost forgot to install the tag and had to do it quick as we were getting ready to leave the ferry in Kristiansand. We followed the instructions on how to position it, however when we checked some Norwegian cars in a nearby parking garage, we didn't position it ideally. I was worried if it would work and here is where my expectations of the whole thing didn't really meet reality. I was expecting to log on to my account and get a live feed of my transactions, this way I can also cross-check if it works. However, they don't show you the transactions until they finally decide to bill you (via actual mail). So no insight into your transactions while on the road, paper invoicing with a significant delay - other than the discount it was hard to see the advantages of this all.

One big advantage was the ability to link a ferry agreement to the tag, giving us 50% discount on almost all ferries. We took more than 10 ferries on this trip so that at least made an impact. For the ferry agreement you however need to pay like 300 EUR upfront and they take the money from the account as you make ferry crossings. The positive here is that at least they give you an overview of ferry transactions within 24 hours of crossing. Anyway, now I just have to wait for the bill I guess and only then I know whether the tag worked for toll roads and how much I actually spent.

Ah and I was surprised it worked for the Oresund Bridge. We took an ordinary booth because I didn't think this tag would work, but then we heard a beeping sound and the person in the toll booth told us to go. Curious if we got a discount here because 65 Euros is a crime if you compare it to some of the infrastructure we drove on / through in Norway for free.


----------



## Ni3lS

Here are some phone snapshots from my trip through Norway this month. Beautiful country, amazing roads  

Lysevegen










Fv450 (Sinnes - Byrkjedal)










First ferry in Norway (Hjelmeland)










Hardangerbrua










Somewhere on Riksvei 13 I believe










A Norwegian traffic jam (it took about 30-45 minutes to get past these goats when finally the farmer came and helped out lol)










Nærøyfjorden










Aurlandsfjellet 










Somewhere on Fv63 between Geiranger and Riksvei 15










On the Geirangerfjord scenic ferry










Trollstigen


----------



## ChrisZwolle

E6 Kvål - Melhus will fully open to traffic on 27 June: Nå åpnes ny E6 fra Kvål til Melhus | Nye Veier AS

Most of it already opened on 9 December 2021, but there is one little segment remaining.










Location: OpenStreetMap


----------



## Mirakelmix

54°26′S 3°24′E said:


> These are the new proposed AADT limits from the road directorate:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nye regler for vegbygging skal gi god lokal tilpasning
> 
> 
> Vegdirektøren vil kombinere god framkommelighet med mindre naturinngrep. Det kan vi oppnå ved å myke opp regelverket for veibygging.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.vegvesen.no
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Essentially, it increases the AADT threshold for when motorways are allowed (to 8000 AADT) and required (from 15 000 AADT full width), but at the same time also opens up for motorways with lower speed limits than 110. In other words: Motorways with inferior geometry.
> 
> 
> H1:
> View attachment 3361070
> 
> H2:
> View attachment 3361075
> 
> View attachment 3361080
> 
> H3: "Full bredde" (full width):
> View attachment 3361089
> 
> 
> 
> H3 "smal 4-felts" is narrower than this.


Why is there no distinction between H2 with 2 or 3 lanes? And why's the upper limit set to 15.000 AADT, I thought a 1/2-road had a higher capacity?


----------



## Ni3lS

My first 2 videos from Norway, the Fylkesvei 450 'Hunnedalsvegen' in the South.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

The Fjørtoftfjord Tunnel opened to traffic on 16 June. This is a 3,680 meter long undersea tunnel, part of Nordøyvegen near Ålesund. It is the second of three undersea tunnels to open to traffic.









Ann-Mari har brukt fem timar på å levere barna til skule og barnehage


Kvardagen til Ann Mari Bjørnøy og barna blir mykje enklare etter at Fjørtoftfjordtunnelen opna. No sparar dei seg over fire timar på levering til skule og barnehage.




www.nrk.no





The third tunnel (Nogvafjord Tunnel) will be inaugurated on 27 August. 

Location: OpenStreetMap


----------



## Gsus

Mirakelmix said:


> Why is there no distinction between H2 with 2 or 3 lanes? And why's the upper limit set to 15.000 AADT, I thought a 1/2-road had a higher capacity?


H2 in Norway is not similar to a Swedish 2+1-road in the way that the usually is always a passing-lane in one of the directions at all time. Current H2-requirements are 1 passing lane pr. 10 km at AADT<8000 and 2 pr. 10 km at AADT>8000. 

Why the limit is set at 15 000? Why build a road ready to reach the capacity-limit? Theres not that far further until AADT-levels that can expect having capacity-problems at parts of the day (depends mainly on level of rushhour-traffic, heavy-vehicle percentage and inclination).


----------



## Mirakelmix

Gsus said:


> H2 in Norway is not similar to a Swedish 2+1-road in the way that the usually is always a passing-lane in one of the directions at all time. Current H2-requirements are 1 passing lane pr. 10 km at AADT<8000 and 2 pr. 10 km at AADT>8000.


Okay. My question is then, why don't they utilize the swedish design then? It seems excessive to jump straight to a full-scale motorway... 


> Why the limit is set at 15 000? Why build a road ready to reach the capacity-limit? Theres not that far further until AADT-levels that can expect having capacity-problems at parts of the day (depends mainly on level of rushhour-traffic, heavy-vehicle percentage and inclination).


Well the capacity limit is well above 15.000 AADT isn't it? I assume H2 (as it is a standard for motorways) is not build with at-level intersections?
The H4 for example has a capacity limit at above 50.000 AADT, thus the range it has to cover is huge!


----------



## Gsus

Mirakelmix said:


> Okay. My question is then, why don't they utilize the swedish design then? It seems excessive to jump straight to a full-scale motorway...


I`ve been wondering the exact reasons myself, or if it`s been evaluated. But if I`m to guess I think it has to do with Norway in general being hilly, and thus lowering construction-costs where possible. Also, Norway has a low percentage of farm-lands, and its strived to build down as little as possible to roads and property-development these days. Also, a moment might be H2 class roads are only allowed to have central guardrail through tunnels up to 500m in length. Longer tunnels are mostly built single tubed without mid-railing if the AADT is`nt to high, thus making it hard requiring to much passing-lanes is these where to be constructed in long tunnels and switch directions of the passing lanes.



Mirakelmix said:


> Well the capacity limit is well above 15.000 AADT isn't it? I assume H2 (as it is a standard for motorways) is not build with at-level intersections?
> The H4 for example has a capacity limit at above 50.000 AADT, thus the range it has to cover is huge!


18 000 has been found as a theoretical limit in a study from some years back, on pretty flat roads before delays will starts during heaviest trafficated hours. From what I`ve seen, that study had assumed low inclinations (2%) and low heavy-vehicle percentage (10%). We do have "H2-types" of road with AADT over 20 000 (f.i. E18 between Arendal and Grimstad), but not without delays during rush-hour. E18 between Tønsberg and Sandefjord was partly like this until 2014, with up to 25 000 in AADT, having severe problems at least during summer (holiday-traffic).

Regarding H4, I`m guessing you refere to H3 according to Norwegian standards? Several sections of 2+2 sections (partly low-standard, but grade separated) in Norway around Oslo and Stavanger has an AADT of more than 60 000, so it does work somehow with heavy rush-hour delays  E18 in Bærum is a 3+3 road with one of the inbound lanes changed to a bus-lane back in the 1990`s. Here theres up to 90 000 vehicles a day. Mark that theres a heavy electrical vehicle percentage, and they are allowed to use the bus-lane if having a passenger onboard.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

A video of the casting of the roundabout lid at the western end of the new Rv 706 bridge at Sluppen in Trondheim. This is the biggest single concrete casting of the project, lasting 34 hours and consuming 360 concrete truck loads. In the back in front of the tunnel portals the tower of the bridge is also being casted.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

The second stage of the E16 bypass at Jevnaker opened to traffic today. This includes the Randselva Bridge, a large concrete box girder bridge with a 634 meter length (200 meter main span). The deck is 55 meters above the river.

The bridge won an award for the best BIM project. They built a 3D model of the entire bridge so they wouldn't need traditional drawings.

Location: OpenStreetMap


----------



## MichiH

ChrisZwolle said:


> The second stage of the E16 bypass at Jevnaker opened to traffic today. This includes the Randselva Bridge, a large concrete box girder bridge with a 634 meter length (200 meter main span). The deck is 55 meters above the river.
> 
> The bridge won an award for the best BIM project. They built a 3D model of the entire bridge so they wouldn't need traditional drawings.
> 
> Location: OpenStreetMap


When has the first stage (exit 6 to 7) been opened?


----------



## ChrisZwolle

20 December 2021









Åpner ny E16 i Jevnaker et halvt år før tiden


Statens vegvesen og Skanska fremskynder åpningen av ny E16 i Jevnaker til 20. desember. Det er et halvt år før tiden.




www.vegvesen.no


----------



## MichiH

OSM and GM indicate it having two carriageways. Is it 2x2 or 2x1?


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

1+2. 


ChrisZwolle said:


> They built a 3D model of the entire bridge so they wouldn't need traditional drawings.


I am not in the construction business, but I thought this had been standard practice for decades? 

Further south, at E6 Rygge, there have been better days...


----------



## Ingenioren

MichiH said:


> OSM and GM indicate it having two carriageways. Is it 2x2 or 2x1?


1+1 with passing lanes.


----------



## MattiG

*Fast Traffic on the E39, almost 2 km/h*


----------



## Ni3lS

Those are no joke 😂 They will not move for anyone. I was stuck behind a herd for about 45 minutes once until the farmer came and rescued me lol.


----------



## keber

ChrisZwolle said:


> The second stage of the E16 bypass at Jevnaker opened to traffic today. This includes the Randselva Bridge, a large concrete box girder bridge with a 634 meter length (200 meter main span). The deck is 55 meters above the river.
> 
> The bridge won an award for the best BIM project. They built a 3D model of the entire bridge so they wouldn't need traditional drawings.
> 
> Location: OpenStreetMap


They surely made traditional drawings from actual BIM model. But it could be that BIM model was so detailed that no traditional drawings were needed (that is possible with bridges and buildings). Traditional drawings are necessary for most people involed in construction (especially non-technical and all people that approve new structure). And also ordinary construction workers can't read digital BIM models when they work on structures.


----------



## devo

keber said:


> They surely made traditional drawings from actual BIM model. But it could be that BIM model was so detailed that no traditional drawings were needed (that is possible with bridges and buildings). Traditional drawings are necessary for most people involed in construction (especially non-technical and all people that approve new structure). And also ordinary construction workers can't read digital BIM models when they work on structures.


Regarding another project, Trysfjordbrua, so-called BIM kiosks where deployed around the site removing the need for traditional _paper_ drawings.
I assume they did the same on the E 16 project. The example below (from Trysfjordbrua) does look like a quite complicated 3D cross section of the bridge but I'm not familiar with how it's done today, the last time I saw a drawing from a bridge it was in 1999. But I'm sure such a system could provide any kind of drawings.

















Sterk vekst i brumiljø


Etablerer egen bruteknologigruppe.




www.at.no


----------



## MattiG

*Aursjøvegen*

Recent dashcam footage on the Aursjøvegen. It is a 55 kilometers long toll road between Eikesdalen and Sunndalsøra. The road is a nice experience for those ones loving treeless highlands. The road reaches 947 meters over the sea level, and most of it runs above 800 meters.


----------



## Kjello0

The four proposed solutions for a future bridge across the E39 Halsa Fjord.
Alternative 1, one span suspension bridge.









Alternative 2, one span suspension bridge with the eastern tower buildt on the Aakvik shallow, roughly 90 meters depht.









Alternative 3, combined cable-stayed bridge and floating bridge.









Alternative 4, Two span tension leg platform (TLP) bridge.










A video with the three former.





And the latter TLP bridge.


----------



## Rob73

Any idea when the E6 between Moelv and Lilliehammar will be upgraded to the same standard as the road before the bridge. Also the E6 between Sjoa and Dombås is pretty bad now.


----------



## Rob73

Kjello0 said:


> The four proposed solutions for a future bridge across the E39 Halsa Fjord.
> Alternative 1, one span suspension bridge.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Alternative 2, one span suspension bridge with the eastern tower buildt on the Aakvik shallow, roughly 90 meters depht.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Alternative 3, combined cable-stayed bridge and floating bridge.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Alternative 4, Two span tension leg platform (TLP) bridge.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A video with the three former.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the latter TLP bridge.


Does this get built before or after Møreaksen?


----------



## Gsus

ChrisZwolle said:


> I believe this is the largest road project in Norway to open to traffic this year.


In close competition with E39 west of Kristiansand I guess.


----------



## Tronni

The new rv. 4 between Sandvoll and Amundrud will open on December 20th this year, 11 months earlier than planned.
The project to widen Norway's narrowest 3-lane road started in November 2021. The original deadline was October 20th 2023.

The road has been widened from 10/11m to 15m to make way for a crash barrier between the directions. The intersection between rv. 4 and fv. 34 has also been rebuilt.









Anlegg Øst skal bygge ny riksvei 4 fra Sandvoll til Amundrud


Statens vegvesen har gitt jobben med å bygge ny riksvei 4 fra Sandvoll til Amundrud i Gran kommune til Anlegg Øst.




www.veier24.no














Rv. 4 before works started.


----------



## Ingenioren

Gsus said:


> In close competition with E39 west of Kristiansand I guess.


Also Nordøyvegen is a huge project opened this year.


----------



## threo2k

When will the new E39 between Kristiansand and Mandal open? any date?


----------



## devo

Early November according to the latest update, no exact date yet. 








E39 Kristiansand-Mandal åpner i november - N247 - Nyheter fra Søgne, Songdalen og Flekkerøy


Nettavis med nyheter fra Søgne og Songdalen




www.n247.no





This opening will not include the entire intersection at Grauthelleren, this will be ready in spring 2023.
As usual you can follow the project in monthly updates at this site. The first view is the intersection mentioned which is clearly not going to be complete in early November.





E39 Kristiansand-Mandal | Virtual tour generated by Panotour


Virtual tour generated by Panotour



pano.afgruppen.no





OSM: OpenStreetMap

The bridges under construction in the center of the image is the start of Ytre Ringvei. These will be ghost bridges until Ytre ringvei is complete, this project is currently on hold as with many other of Nye Veier's projects. Ytre ringvei will be designated E 18.
When the intersection is complete E 39 westbound and the cycle/walking path will run underneath these bridges.
Eastbound E 39 will run under another smaller culvert/bridge which is complete but currently used for works access. This bridge carries the future eastbound E 18 access ramp (to Ytre ringvei). 

Currently E 39 utilises the future eastbound E 39 ramp of the intersection. This will continue also after the opening in November, meaning traffic will use the ramps at the intersection until the entire intersection is complete.

Further along most of the road is complete. The formwork for the westbound ramp at Monan was being removed last week.
I suspect the eastbound ramp would be one of the last pieces to be completed before opening.


----------



## Ni3lS

One of the most beautiful roads I have driven this year


----------



## Tronni

Today, the government put forward the national budget for 2023. Announcements made in the last few weeks indicated that there would be significantly fewer road projects starting/getting funding in 2023, but the budget today was even lower than most anticipated. None of Statens Vegvesens larger projects made it into the budget, except for the two planned PPP's (rv. 555 Sotrasambandet and E10/rv. 83/rv. 85 Tjeldsund - Gullesfjordbotn - Langvassbukt). However, the budget stated that Vegvesenet can still make smaller planned improvements on a few stretches. Projects that have already started or are in the construction phase will continue to get funding. The maintenance budget for state-owned roads has been increased slightly.

Nye Veier's budget and portifolio remain the same, except for changes made to E16 Skaret - Hønefoss and the Ringerike line. The Ringerike line has been untied from the project and taken over by Bane NOR. Nye Veier will still build E16 between Skaret and Hønefoss, but they won't get extra funding for it, so the project will have to be prioritised in the same way as Nye Veier's other projects.

With this in mind, I decided to compile a list over most major road projects that will open in the the next years (+ the few projects that will start next year).

*Road projects opening and where construction is starting the next few years (incomplete list):

*


Spoiler



R*oads that are planned to/will open in 2022:*

E134 south of Mælefjelltunnelen (upgrade, new alignment)
E16 Kvamskleiva (upgrade, rock slide protection + widening to yellow centre line)
E16 Turtnes - Øye (upgrade/widening to yellow centre line)
E39 Grauthelleren - Døle bru (motorway)
E39 Svegatjørn - Rådal (motorway)
Rv. 4 Jaren - Amundrud (upgrade/widening, central crash barrier)
Rv. 41 Gauslå kleiver (upgrade, new alignment, widening to yellow centre line)
Rv. 5 Kjøsnesfjorden (tunnel, rock slide protection)
Rv. 9 Hartevatn - Badstogdalen (upgrade/widening to yellow centre line)
Rv. 9 Rotemo - Lunden (upgrade/widening to yellow centre line)


*Roads where construction will start in 2023:*

E18/E39 Gartnerløkka - Kolsdalen (main contract) (new main road, interchanges, other infrastructure)
E10/rv. 83/rv. 85 Tjeldsund - Gullesfjordbotn - Langvassbukt (PPP) (upgrade, widening, new alignment)
E6 Berkåk - Vindåsliene (mainly motorway)
E6 Storhove - Øyer (half motorway, half upgrade/widening of current road)
E6 Sørelva - Borkamo (upgrade/widening to yellow centre line)
Rv. 555 Sotrasambandet, Storavatnet - Kolltveit (PPP) (bridge replacement, motorway, local road system)

Possibly also:

E136 new road through/past Veblungsnes and/or possibly new road/upgrade Flatmark - Monge - Marstein
Rv. 70 replacement of old/narrow bridges (Fale and Romfo bridges)?
Rv. 80 widening/upgrade of Sandvika - Sagelva and/or new access to Bodø airport
Rv. 94 widening/upgrade of Akkarfjord - Jansvannet and/or Mollstrand - Grøtnes
Rv. 13 rock slide protection and widening of certain sections

*Roads that are planned to/will open in 2023:*

E136 Jora bru (bridge replacement, local roads)
E39 Lønset - Hjelset (2+1 expressway/motortrafikkvei)
E39 Myrmel - Lunde (upgrade, new alignment, widening to yellow centre line)
E69 Skarvbergtunnelen (upgrade, rock slide/avalanche protection + widening to yellow centre line)
Rv. 3 Elverhøybrua (bridge replacement, local roads)
Rv. 4 Roa - Gran (motorway)
Rv. 41 Treungen - Stråndrak (upgrade/widening to yellow centre line)
Rv. 706 Nydalsbrua (bridge replacement + new local road system)

*Roads that are planned to/will open in 2024:*

E39 Betna - Hestnes (upgrade, widening, new alignment)
E6 Fjerdingen - Grøndalselv (upgrade/widening to yellow centre line)
E6 Kvænangsfjellet (new alignment, avalanche protection)
E6 Ranheim - Reitan (motorway)
E6 Reitan - Hommelvik (motorway)
Rv. 3 Tunna bru (bridge replacement, new alignment)

*Roads that are planned to/will open in 2025:*

E16 Bjørum - Skaret (motorway)
E18 Langangen - Rugtvedt (motorway)
E39 Herdal - Røyskår (motorway)
E6 Hommelvik - Værnes (motorway)
E6 Svenningelv - Lien (upgrade, widening, new alignment)


----------



## Tronni

Both rv. 9 Lunden - Rotemo and Badstogdalen - Hartevatn opened this week. This means that the goal of having a road wide enough for a yellow centre line between Kristiansand and Hovden is 5,8 km closer. The two biggest missing stretches left (to my knowledge) are the road through the village of Frøysnes (2,2 km) and the road between Hartevatn and Byklestøylane (16 km). 









Statens vegvesen sør


Denne uke åpnet to nye strekninger langs rv. 9 i Setesdal. Rotemo - Lunden i Valle kommune og Badstogdalen - Hartevatn i Bykle kommune er nå ferdig utbygd. Til sammen 5,8 km km ny veg, bedre sikt,...




www.facebook.com


----------



## Tronni

Today, Nye Veier released the reports COWI made as a preliminary project for E18 Grimstad - Arendal, including one regarding the future road standard. The report recommended a width of 23 metres between the new E18 at Harebakken in the east and Nedenes, and between Grimstadporten (the short tunnel) and Øygardsdalen in the west. The central section is recommended to be 21 metres wide.

From Harebakken and westwards around 5 kms the speed limit will be 110 km/h, the rest of the road will have a speed of 100 km/h. The whole road will be motorway. 

Still, unless Nye Veier decides to prioritise differently soon, this project will be one of the last sections of the E18 to be finished.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Cool photo of the E39 Trysfjord Bridge west of Kristiansand, which is scheduled to open to traffic in a couple of weeks.


----------



## Tronni

E16 Turtnes - Øye opened today. Construction started in August last year. The road has been widened, straightened, and new bridges have been built on a 3,2 km stretch. 









Vidar klipte snora for Turtnes-Øye - vangivaldres.no - arbeid, bustad, fjell og folk


Nok ein festdag i Vang når ordføraren i dag kunne klippe snora for vegstrekninga Turtnes-Øye!




www.vangivaldres.no














The new road:










What it looked like before:


----------



## Tronni

Some other smaller projects that have opened recently:

In July, 1 150 metres of E134 opened in Seljord. The project eliminated an ugly bend in the road and created a uniform standard between the centre of Seljord and Mælefjelltunnelen.

Before:









After:










Also in July/the summer, a 5,2 kilometre section of rv. 41 in Nissedal opened. It was (supposed to be) widened to at least 6,5 metres. Couldn't find any pictures of the new road.
Here's a picture from 2020:










Rv. 41 between Treungen and Vrådal was in 2018 voted as the 10th worst road in the country in an unofficial vote carried out by NRK. There are currently plans to widen and upgrade the whole stretch in the next few years.

And finally the most recent opening: rv. 41 through Gauslå kleiver in Birkenes. The road opened on time and under budget this Monday according to the local newspaper: Gauslå kleiver ferdigstilt før tiden – til under budsjettert pris • Birkenesavisa










The new road is 1,5 km long and replaced a road that was narrow, bendy and in some places steep. The road was upgraded and widened to 7,5 metres.

Here's a map from before:










And the new road here on OSM:








OpenStreetMap


OpenStreetMap is a map of the world, created by people like you and free to use under an open license.




www.openstreetmap.org





I can't confirm the width of either of the rv. 41 projects however, as I couldn't find pictures of the openings, and SVV's own pictures from September of this year still show the roads without centre markings. Maybe the markings will come later?

I also noticed something regarding width on the rv. 41 sections. All the sections from Treungen to Kyrkjebygda will be upgraded to be 6,5 metres wide, most likely due to valuable nature types (and/or difficult terrain). This is the absolute minimum to qualify for centre markings. All the other sections planned on rv. 41 seem to be at least 7,5 metres wide, including the last section in Nissedal between Vrådal and fv. 32 at Steane.


----------



## Rob73

No Møre Aksen, that sucks, hopefully this cabal of morons, idiots and champagne socialists will be gone next election.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

But you have been granted free ferry to Aukra 😝


----------



## ChrisZwolle

The E39 motorway south of Bergen will open to traffic in a week. It's an 18 kilometer motorway to Os, mostly in tunnels. The 9.2 kilometer Lysehorntunnel is the longest, the Råtunnel also includes an underground split to Rv. 580 to the airport.


----------



## Rob73

54°26′S 3°24′E said:


> But you have been granted free ferry to Aukra 😝


I'd rather have a free ferry to Vestnes and a better road to Ålesund.


----------



## Suburbanist

This is great news for traffic here in Bergen.

There is talk that Os will undergo a massive real estate boom.I with Bergen could annex the northern part of the Bjønaforden municipality to better coordinate development.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Some facts about the new E39 Bergen - Os;


it is the first road in Western Norway (Vestland) with a 100 km/h speed limit
the 9.3 km Lyshorn Tunnel is the longest tunnel in Norway with a 100 km/h speed limit
the project includes 28.7 kilometers of tunnel tube
18 kilometers of motorway, with four tunnels









Stor fest i vest da ministeren åpnet E39 Svegatjørn-Rådal


Jubelen var stor da samferdselsminister Jon-Ivar Nygård åpnet ny E39 mellom Os og Bergen med båtbyggerøks fra Os.




www.veier24.no


----------



## Suburbanist

There will be new city ring tolls in connection with the project.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

ChrisZwolle said:


> Some facts about the new E39 Bergen - Os;
> 
> 
> it is the first road in Western Norway (Vestland) with a 100 km/h speed


Note that Vestland is not the same as Western Norway. In addition to Vestland county, Western Norway (called Vestlandet in Norwegian), includes Rogaland and Møre og Romsdal counties. Which is exactly why those latter counties were not happy with the "Vestland" name when the former Hordaland and Sogn og Fjordane counties merged. 

I have not checked the speed limits of the Rogaland motorways everywhere, but your fact may apply both for Vestland and Western Norway, though.


----------



## Tronni

The 19 km section of motorway on E39 between Døle bru and Grauthelleren opened to traffic today. The official opening is set to take place on December 9th. 






E39 Kristiansand – Mandal åpnet for trafikk | Nye Veier AS







www.nyeveier.no


----------



## MichiH

Tronni said:


> The 19 km section of motorway on E39 between Døle bru and Grauthelleren opened to traffic today. The official opening is set to take place on December 9th.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> E39 Kristiansand – Mandal åpnet for trafikk | Nye Veier AS
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nyeveier.no


Thanks! I'm a little bit puzzled. Is the road open for traffic now, or from December 9th? What will happen on December 9th?



> Nye Veier åpnet torsdag 24. november for trafikk på den 19 kilometer lange strekningen Kristiansand vest – Mandal øst.
> google translated:
> Nye Veier opened on Thursday 24 November for traffic on the 19 kilometer stretch Kristiansand west - Mandal east.
> 
> Trafikkpåsetting skjer før den offisielle åpningen som er 9. desember.
> google translated:
> Traffic control takes place before the official opening, which is on 9 December.


----------



## Tronni

The road opened for traffic today, but an opening ceremony will be held December 9th (ribbon cutting, speeches, etc.).


----------



## Hansadyret

ChrisZwolle said:


> Ny E16 gjennom Kvamskleiva åpner 18. november
> 
> 
> 5,4 kilometer med etterlengtet vei.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.veier24.no
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A 5.4 kilometer upgrade of E16 east of Vang (Valdres region) will open on 18 November. It includes an 1.8 kilometer tunnel, which was bored and equipped in only 2 years.
> 
> Location of project: OpenStreetMap


That was the worst part of E16 now gone, together with E16 Turtnes-Øye that also opened a short time ago.
I guess the worst part of E16 is now some areas just east of Voss.


----------



## Tronni

A new version of the national budget for 2023 was released today, and E16 and Vossebanen between Arna and Stanghelle has received more money. This means that they now have enough money for planning and land acquisition throughout 2023, and that constuction start in 2024 still is realistic.









Statsbudsjettet: Kan halda fram oppgraderinga av «Noregs verste veg» E16 mellom Bergen og Voss


200 millionar kroner til bygginga av ny E16 og jernbane mellom Bergen og Voss gjer at prosjektet kan halda fram.




www.nrk.no


----------



## Suburbanist

Tronni said:


> A new version of the national budget for 2023 was released today, and E16 and Vossebanen between Arna and Stanghelle has received more money. This means that they now have enough money for planning and land acquisition throughout 2023, and that constuction start in 2024 still is realistic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statsbudsjettet: Kan halda fram oppgraderinga av «Noregs verste veg» E16 mellom Bergen og Voss
> 
> 
> 200 millionar kroner til bygginga av ny E16 og jernbane mellom Bergen og Voss gjer at prosjektet kan halda fram.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nrk.no


This is really needed. This sector is busy, prone to accidents and closures.

It was also announced that preparatory works will begin on new E39 tunnels in Bergen between the city center and Ervik. Technically, they will extend the existing Floyentunnelen to Ervik, making them longer. This will allows the current double-carriageway E39 to be used for a local road (one set of lanes/tubes) and for a new light rail line.

Bergen has a huge chokepoint in Gamle Bergen on E39. No alternative route. If it closes, the only way to get from the North to the city center is via a very long detour via Arna and Nesstun.


----------



## Tronni

Due to a tight budget and new national guidelines for swamplands, the plans for rv. 4 past Lygna have been downscaled. The road will be rebuilt/widened mostly in place, and the planned interchange at Lygnasæter has been reduced to a normal intersection.

The planned section:










The plan from 2020:









The new plan from 2022:










According to the long term strategy for rv. 4, this section will be rebuilt again before 2040, probably as a 4-lane road or a motorway.


----------



## random_user_name

What's the point of this project then, if it's going to last only ~15 years? Wouldn't it be better to just go ahead with the final design, even if it meant leaving the road in the current state for a bit longer?


----------



## Gsus

random_user_name said:


> What's the point of this project then, if it's going to last only ~15 years? Wouldn't it be better to just go ahead with the final design, even if it meant leaving the road in the current state for a bit longer?


I don't beleive there will come a motorway/four lane road accross Lygna, or along the more straight line over Henning within 15 years or possibly ever. Traffic is only about 5000, and a lot of money has been used on the existing road. Don't know if even the road administration really believes in this either.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Considering that Rv. 4 is called 'Trondheimsveien' in Oslo, was this once the main road north? Before Rv. 3 and E6?


----------



## Tronni

Gsus said:


> I don't beleive there will come a motorway/four lane road accross Lygna, or along the more straight line over Henning within 15 years or possibly ever. Traffic is only about 5000, and a lot of money has been used on the existing road. Don't know if even the road administration really believes in this either.


I thought I read in the concept study for rv. 4 and the Gjøvik line that this stretch would be upgraded to a higher capacity road, albeit last or nearly last, but you're right. The study only recommends minor/smaller safety improvements.


----------



## Gsus

ChrisZwolle said:


> Considering that Rv. 4 is called 'Trondheimsveien' in Oslo, was this once the main road north? Before Rv. 3 and E6?


Yes, todays rv. 4 was the Main road into Oslo from the North until 1968, when the E6 motorway was built between Hvam in (todays) Lillestrøm municipality and Karihaugen in Oslo. E6 ran over Sinsen to Gjelleråsen in Nittedal and then east to Hvam. Four lanes was built on rv. 4 in the Grorud valley already in the late 50's. Before 1965 the E6 and rv. 4 was called rv. 50 which was throughout-going roadnumber between Oslo and Trondheim. 

If you wanna read a quite good summary of the history of Norwegian motorways, I recommend translating this Wikipedia-article: https://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorveier_i_Norge?wprov=sfla1


----------



## Gsus

Tronni said:


> I thought I read in the concept study for rv. 4 and the Gjøvik line that this stretch would be upgraded to a higher capacity road, albeit last or nearly last, but you're right. The study only recommends minor/smaller safety improvements.


I remember that concept study very well. It was very critizised for setting "absolutte requirements", that basically only gave the recommendation of a high-speed and high-capacity road and railroad. For instance the study set as a requirement that the travel time between Gjøvik and Lillehammer, and Gjøvik and Hamar was to be lowered by at least 20-25 minutes by public transportation, giving a railway built from Gjøvik to Moelv as the only possible recommendation. I think it was the KS1 of the concept study that tore it apart, and in further concept studies the transport departement was carefully instructing to not set absolute requirements. 

Anyways, from what I remember the KS1-recommendation was to only widen Lygna-Eina to 9m width, stretch the passing lane on the north side of Lygna to the bottom of the hill and make better intersections and parallel bicycle ways where there are none today.


----------



## Ni3lS

Included some drone footage of the impressive Hardanger Bridge for those interested


----------



## Tronni

Rv. 4 Sandvold - Amundrud opened today.









I dag åpnet den nye veien som ble julegave på Hadeland


Trafikken har gått på det meste av veien en stund allerede. Og 20. desember var det åpning med pomp og prakt av en strekning som er ferdig over et halvt år før fristen.




www.veier24.no













OpenStreetMap


OpenStreetMap is a map of the world, created by people like you and free to use under an open license.




www.openstreetmap.org


----------



## ChrisZwolle

E6-utbygging utsettes på ubestemt tid | Nye Veier AS







www.nyeveier.no





The construction of E6 as a 43 kilometer motorway in the Lillehammer region has turned into a giant fiasco. 

It was planned to construct it under three separate contracts:


Moelv - Roterud: contract with Rizzani de Eccher canceled in 2021 due to uncertainties regarding the cost overruns for the partial timber motorway bridge across lake Mjøsa.
Roterud - Storhove: awarded in 2020 to AF Gruppen, construction was supposed to start around now, but now postponed indefinitely due to an environmental issue with the bridge across the Lågen River.
Storhove - Øyer: contract signing with OHL in 2021 was canceled at the last minute due to cost overruns

I don't exactly understand the problems with the Roterud - Storhove segment. Is this politically motivated?


----------



## Tronni

The main problem is that the Roterud - Storhove segment goes straight through a nature reserve. Nye Veier has planned this as the only solution, and assumed that they'll get permission to build it anyway. But now the Environment Agency has denied them a dispensation, saying that building for 110 km/h is not necessary in all projects. The Environment Agency has also said that Nye Veier can submit new plans with lower standards if they want to keep this alignment.

Maybe Nye Veier thought it would be fine because they didn't have problems with getting permission when they built E6 through Åkersvika? 

Personally I don't really think this alignment is a good idea anyway. They should try to avoid routing major transport projects through nature reserves as much as possible.


----------



## MattiG

Tronni said:


> The main problem is that the Roterud - Storhove segment goes straight through a nature reserve. Nye Veier has planned this as the only solution, and assumed that they'll get permission to build it anyway. But now the Environment Agency has denied them a dispensation, saying that building for 110 km/h is not necessary in all projects. The Environment Agency has also said that Nye Veier can submit new plans with lower standards if they want to keep this alignment.
> 
> Maybe Nye Veier thought it would be fine because they didn't have problems with getting permission when they built E6 through Åkersvika?
> 
> Personally I don't really think this alignment is a good idea anyway. They should try to avoid routing major transport projects through nature reserves as much as possible.


If two pretty long bridges over Mjøsa quite close to each other cause unmanageable cost implications, could it be possible to build a new E6 on the east side of the lake: from Moelv to the eastern hinterland of Lillehammer and then to Fåberg? Are there strong reasons to have the motorway on the west side where the E6 currently runs?


----------



## Tronni

MattiG said:


> If two pretty long bridges over Mjøsa quite close to each other cause unmanageable cost implications, could it be possible to build a new E6 on the east side of the lake: from Moelv to the eastern hinterland of Lillehammer and then to Fåberg? Are there strong reasons to have the motorway on the west side where the E6 currently runs?


I don't really know if rerouting E6 is politically agreeable at the moment, but that could be a solution. That is where the main road used to go before Mjøsbrua was built in the 80s. One of the main things that speak against it is that the current E6 plans were supposed to be coordinated with the planning and construction of a new rv. 4 between Mjøsbrua and Gjøvik.


----------



## Gsus

Tronni said:


> The main problem is that the Roterud - Storhove segment goes straight through a nature reserve. Nye Veier has planned this as the only solution, and assumed that they'll get permission to build it anyway. But now the Environment Agency has denied them a dispensation, saying that building for 110 km/h is not necessary in all projects. The Environment Agency has also said that Nye Veier can submit new plans with lower standards if they want to keep this alignment.
> 
> Maybe Nye Veier thought it would be fine because they didn't have problems with getting permission when they built E6 through Åkersvika?
> 
> Personally I don't really think this alignment is a good idea anyway. They should try to avoid routing major transport projects through nature reserves as much as possible.


This is not entirely correct. Nye Veier has planned this alignment, as it was the locally prefered (because of noise along the existing corridor) after the municipality plan (kommunedelplan) that explored several alternatives. Nye Veier may have assumed they'll get a permission, but the reason this is the only alignment they've worked with since 2018 is that this was the corridor decided by the parliament. In other words, it was their instruction to work with only this alignment. So it's quite a mess that the environment agency has come to this decition. 

It's not correct that the environment agency has said 110 km/h is not required, but they have made a decition based on the possible introduction of lower speed than 110 as dimensioning on new motorways, but this is a very speculative part of a decition as it has not been intruduced yet, and is still a proposal. Thus, they claim that sufficient alternatives that will either completely avoid or impact the natual reserve less has not been done. So they've not opened for the same alignment with lower speed. They claim that the prerequisite of the speed limit being 110 may not be valid anymore, even tho this was part of the governments decition, which has not been changed. In ny opinion, they have been looking vert hard to find something to end this project, and I dont this is the last word in the case. Even tho this decition is final, and cant be complained, the foundation of the decition is extremely thin, and clearly an attemt on a political decition from what is supposed to be a professional agency. 

A problem with other alternativer are few. The whole Lågen-arena between the Vingnes bridge in Lillehammer and the Hunderfossen dam is part of the reservoir. 



MattiG said:


> If two pretty long bridges over Mjøsa quite close to each other cause unmanageable cost implications, could it be possible to build a new E6 on the east side of the lake: from Moelv to the eastern hinterland of Lillehammer and then to Fåberg? Are there strong reasons to have the motorway on the west side where the E6 currently runs?


This would require a lot of tunnneling, as the east side of Mjøsa between Moelv and Lillehammer is much steeper right up from the lake. Also, tunnneling under Lillehammer would be required, as the city fills the entire valley-side between the lake and the mountains.


----------



## Tronni

Gsus said:


> Even tho this decition is final, and cant be complained, the foundation of the decition is extremely thin, and clearly an attemt on a political decition from what is supposed to be a professional agency.


Can the government override the decision from the agency?


----------



## abedidabedu

Gsus said:


> This is not entirely correct. Nye Veier has planned this alignment, as it was the locally prefered (because of noise along the existing corridor) after the municipality plan (kommunedelplan) that explored several alternatives. Nye Veier may have assumed they'll get a permission, but the reason this is the only alignment they've worked with since 2018 is that this was the corridor decided by the parliament. In other words, it was their instruction to work with only this alignment. So it's quite a mess that the environment agency has come to this decition.
> 
> It's not correct that the environment agency has said 110 km/h is not required, but they have made a decition based on the possible introduction of lower speed than 110 as dimensioning on new motorways, but this is a very speculative part of a decition as it has not been intruduced yet, and is still a proposal. Thus, they claim that sufficient alternatives that will either completely avoid or impact the natual reserve less has not been done. So they've not opened for the same alignment with lower speed. They claim that the prerequisite of the speed limit being 110 may not be valid anymore, even tho this was part of the governments decition, which has not been changed. In ny opinion, they have been looking vert hard to find something to end this project, and I dont this is the last word in the case. Even tho this decition is final, and cant be complained, the foundation of the decition is extremely thin, and clearly an attemt on a political decition from what is supposed to be a professional agency.
> 
> A problem with other alternativer are few. The whole Lågen-arena between the Vingnes bridge in Lillehammer and the Hunderfossen dam is part of the reservoir.
> 
> 
> 
> This would require a lot of tunnneling, as the east side of Mjøsa between Moelv and Lillehammer is much steeper right up from the lake. Also, tunnneling under Lillehammer would be required, as the city fills the entire valley-side between the lake and the mountains.


I want to add that the nature reserve we are talking about follows the river for around 12 km, from south of Lillehammer to north of Fåberg, and there are multiple bridges going through it, including E6 today. Not crossing it with a motorway will mean eather crossing Mjøsa before Lillehammer and get through the town somehow, or stay on the west side and cross north of Fåberg with a lot of tunnels. Both will be really expensive. It will be interesting how this project will change in the future.


----------



## Gsus

Tronni said:


> Can the government override the decision from the agency?


They probably can, but whether they will do that I'm very uncertain about. I don't really think they will.


----------



## Rob73

MattiG said:


> If two pretty long bridges over Mjøsa quite close to each other cause unmanageable cost implications, could it be possible to build a new E6 on the east side of the lake: from Moelv to the eastern hinterland of Lillehammer and then to Fåberg? Are there strong reasons to have the motorway on the west side where the E6 currently runs?


I've wondered why the E6 crossed to the west then crossed back east to Lilliehammer, it doesn't make any sense to me, a new route staying on the eastern side would make far more sense and save having to build or upgrade the existing bridges.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

The area east of Lillehammer has higher elevations (around 500-600 meters), potentially with steep stretches. It is also further from the existing road network (such as Rv. 4 from Gjøvik and E6 as access roads to Lillehammer). An eastern alignment would also divide traffic into through traffic and regional traffic, making the investment less profitable than if traffic is bundled onto a single upgraded corridor, catching both through and regional traffic.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

A video of the Molde - Ålesund project (Romsdalsfjord Tunnel & Julsund Bridge, which is the largest suspension bridge in Europe).

The English of the narrator is really good. I assume by the pronunciation of the Norwegian placenames that the narrator is Norwegian, but his English is really quite good.


----------



## MattiG

*Ferry Payments*

Last July, I made a holiday trip to Norway. Since that, I have been waiting for an invoice about ferries and toll roads. Today, after five and half months, I received the first contact: an invoice. Norway seems not to be in a hurry with this. The invoice, however, is in error. Autopassferje.no wants to charge me for two crossings on the Anda-Lote ferry, within 14 minutes. I submitted a complaint. Let us see what happens next.

The letter is pretty funny. As an evidence of four crossings, it contains two frontal photos of the car license plate, without any timestamp or location information.

It seems to me that there still is some work to be done in the Norwegian digitalization. A dashcam is a useful device to collect a log during the it. It is a new use case for me to fight fraudulent authorities.


----------



## Rob73

ChrisZwolle said:


> A video of the Molde - Ålesund project (Romsdalsfjord Tunnel & Julsund Bridge, which is the largest suspension bridge in Europe).
> 
> The English of the narrator is really good. I assume by the pronunciation of the Norwegian placenames that the narrator is Norwegian, but his English is really quite good.


I can’t wait for this to start but I don’t believe it’s one of the project the current (and hopefully gone soon) government has green lighted. Only one thing annoys me, I live in Aukra, it looks like we will need to pay a toll to drive to Molde, this is a mistake IMO.


----------



## abedidabedu

Rob73 said:


> I can’t wait for this to start but I don’t believe it’s one of the project the current (and hopefully gone soon) government has green lighted. Only one thing annoys me, I live in Aukra, it looks like we will need to pay a toll to drive to Molde, this is a mistake IMO.


The road between Julbøen and Molde will get an upgrade with this road, and the toll you will be paying will most likely mean only for this stretch of around 10km. The rule a few years ago was 2.5 kr/km, so around 25kr in this case. May depend how much you prefer the old road if this is worth it for you.


----------



## random_user_name

Do local residents get any discounts on tolls?


----------



## Hansadyret

ChrisZwolle said:


> E6-utbygging utsettes på ubestemt tid | Nye Veier AS
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nyeveier.no
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The construction of E6 as a 43 kilometer motorway in the Lillehammer region has turned into a giant fiasco.


I guess this means other projects will be prioritized instead.


----------



## Hansadyret

delete


----------



## Gsus

Hansadyret said:


> I guess this means other projects will be prioritized instead.


I read the decition from the environmental agency during the holidays, and it makes me wonder if this decision really will be standing, despite what I first thought. It seems to be very political, with a thin foundation on the current governments policies. So I`ll not be surprised if this will be overturned. As abedidabedu states, this natural reservation basicially is in the way of doing anything to E6 past Lillehammer. So if anything is to be done, it`s gonna be hard not touching the reservation.


----------



## Tronni

According to Nye Veier, the new E6 over Kvænangsfjellet will open in December 2023, nine months ahead of schedule. 









(+) E6 Kvænangsfjellet: Åpner tunnel ni måneder før planlagt


– Sånn det ligger an nå, så åpner vi Kvænangsfjelltunnelen midt oppe på fjellet i desember 2023, og det er ni måneder før estimert åpning, sier prosjektsjef Steinar Rask i Nye Veier.




www.bygg.no


----------



## Tronni

On December 15th, the zoning plan for a new stretch of E6 under Ulvsvågskaret was approved. The old road is problematic for trucks, with its long and steep grades. The new road will shorten E6 by 3,6 kilometres. It will feature 3 tunnels, with the longest one planned to be over 3 kilometres long.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

The ferry service between Eemshaven, Netherlands and Kristiansand, Norway is performing above expectations.

The ferry provider forecasted 150,000 passengers for 2022, but they carried 186,000 passengers. It was sold out on many trips. 60,000 tickets have already been sold for 2023. They say that the ferry is already getting tons of bookings for this summer, but also a lot of last minute bookings to Norway due to the poor ski conditions in the Alps.

The MS Romantika has three sailings per week and a capacity of 2,500 passengers and 300 cars.









Veerboot naar Noorwegen in eerste jaar boven verwachting populair


Holland Norway Lines (HNL) sluit het eerste jaar van de verbinding tussen de Eemshaven en het Noorse Kristiansand naar eigen zeggen positief af. Het bedrijf heeft 186.000 passagiers geteld vanaf de eerste afvaart in april. Dat zijn er meer dan de verwachte 150.000 duizend.




www.rtvnoord.nl


----------



## Ni3lS

Had a great experience with the Holland - Norway lines last summer, can recommend it. 










The ferry in Kristiansand


----------



## devo

ChrisZwolle said:


> The ferry service between Eemshaven, Netherlands and Kristiansand, Norway is performing above expectations.
> 
> The ferry provider forecasted 150,000 passengers for 2022, but they carried 186,000 passengers. It was sold out on many trips. 60,000 tickets have already been sold for 2023. They say that the ferry is already getting tons of bookings for this summer, but also a lot of last minute bookings to Norway due to the poor ski conditions in the Alps.
> 
> The MS Romantika has three sailings per week and a capacity of 2,500 passengers and 300 cars.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Veerboot naar Noorwegen in eerste jaar boven verwachting populair
> 
> 
> Holland Norway Lines (HNL) sluit het eerste jaar van de verbinding tussen de Eemshaven en het Noorse Kristiansand naar eigen zeggen positief af. Het bedrijf heeft 186.000 passagiers geteld vanaf de eerste afvaart in april. Dat zijn er meer dan de verwachte 150.000 duizend.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.rtvnoord.nl


Several reports in the local press (Fædrelandsvennen) and logistics journals (logistikkinside.no) state the current capacity at 1500 passengers. I believe this is just a choice and that the capacity still is 2500 but they don't want the ferry to feel overcrowded. There is also a plan to have two new ferries from 26-27 which will be emission-free (utslippsfrie, whatever that means exactly, carbon neutral, green or blue hydrogen, batteries?).
I'm impressed by the performance as there were some serious teething problems in the start where Romantika had to move mid-disembarking since it uses the same piers as the other companies (Fjord Line and ColorLine). I believe this was solved by adjusting the arrival and departure times.
And a general note regarding Kristiansand as a transport hub: there has previously been an issue with ferries or airplanes (ColorAir, FlyNonstop, Widerøe from Kjevik; ColorLine, DFDS? to Newcastle, etc.) that they run "empty" on the return journey i.e. just transporting Norwegians back and forth. It's great to see that HNL tends towards a two-way and more sustainable solution. 

Now we only need to import the Dutch bicycle infrastructure in downtown Kristiansand and you'll feel even more at home (yes we even have a couple of canals!).


----------



## ChrisZwolle

devo said:


> Several reports in the local press (Fædrelandsvennen) and logistics journals (logistikkinside.no) state the current capacity at 1500 passengers. I believe this is just a choice and that the capacity still is 2500 but they don't want the ferry to feel overcrowded.


The article I linked also says that capacity is 2,500, but they kept it at 1,500 for some time (the article wording suggest that the 1,500 limit is not the current limit anymore). Maybe due to covid. Norway had pretty strict entry regulations compared to most of mainland Europe, which makes the ferry more of a success story, as they carried above expectations despite that. 

I'm not sure if this ferry carries trucks. The ferry connection has made Norway feel much closer to the Netherlands, it eliminates a whole day of driving and a ferry from Denmark, or even over a day of driving if traveling via Sweden into Norway. 

I doubt if I would use it myself, I don't mind the drive up to Norway and the cost for the ferry is pretty steep, though competitive with fuel, tolls and hotel on a drive from the Netherlands to Norway via Denmark and Sweden.


----------



## Rob73

abedidabedu said:


> The road between Julbøen and Molde will get an upgrade with this road, and the toll you will be paying will most likely mean only for this stretch of around 10km. The rule a few years ago was 2.5 kr/km, so around 25kr in this case. May depend how much you prefer the old road if this is worth it for you.


I live in Eidskrem, the road between Eidskrem and Molde has been significantly upgraded in the past 8 years, a 1.5km stretch of tunnel was built at Haukabø, which doesn't appear to be part of the new route into Molde. Almost everyone where I live commutes to Molde for work, 50kr per day it going to add up pretty quickly, it will also hurt property prices.


----------



## Rob73

ChrisZwolle said:


> I'm not sure if this ferry carries trucks. The ferry connection has made Norway feel much closer to the Netherlands, it eliminates a whole day of driving and a ferry from Denmark, or even over a day of driving if traveling via Sweden into Norway.


When she was in service with Tallink she carried trucks. I've been on her from Tallinn to Stockholm twice.


----------



## MattiG

Rob73 said:


> When she was in service with Tallink she carried trucks. I've been on her from Tallinn to Stockholm twice.


All passenger ferries originally built for the northern Baltic Sea are well optimized for cargo. This is because Finland is an island from the logistics point of view, and a major part of import and export use the ferries. 

Usually, there is a doubledecker car deck which can be configured in parts to carry trucks and buses on one level or passenger cars on two levels. The upper deck is raised to the ceiling when not in use.

The capacity is expressed in lane meters. The older ferries (built in about 2005 or earlier) have about 900-1000 lane meters, newer ones 1200-1500 and the newest shuttles m/s Megastar and m/s Mystar on the Helsinki-Tallinn route as much as 1900 meters.


----------



## Rob73

MattiG said:


> All passenger ferries originally built for the northern Baltic Sea are well optimized for cargo. This is because Finland is an island from the logistics point of view, and a major part of import and export use the ferries.
> 
> Usually, there is a doubledecker car deck which can be configured in parts to carry trucks and buses on one level or passenger cars on two levels. The upper deck is raised to the ceiling when not in use.
> 
> The capacity is expressed in lane meters. The older ferries (built in about 2005 or earlier) have about 900-1000 lane meters, newer ones 1200-1500 and the newest shuttles m/s Megastar and m/s Mystar on the Helsinki-Tallinn route as much as 1900 meters.


I know I work within the shipbuilding industry, the company I work for supplies lighting, my previous employer supplied the lighting for this ship, Tallink was one of my customers.


----------



## MattiG

Rob73 said:


> I know I work within the shipbuilding industry, the company I work for supplies lighting, my previous employer supplied the lighting for this ship, Tallink was one of my customers.


But it is good to let the others to know, too. Those vessels are called car ferries, but actually they are multi-purpose ships: classy cruise ships, car ferries, passenger ships, ro-ro vessels, cargo ships, shops, etc. First-timers are often quite amazed.


----------



## Rob73

I wouldn't call Romantica Classy.


----------



## MattiG

Rob73 said:


> I wouldn't call Romantica Classy.


Not any more after being in service 20 years, I believe. And it depends on the operator which class services are available. And it depends on which ferries to compare.

There are, of course several categories. The #1 traditionally are the ferries between Finland and Sweden. In earlier decades, the lifecycle was pretty clear:

1) Initially, the ships were put on the routes on the northern Baltic Sea.
2) After 10-20 years, the worn out ships were sold to Kattegat or Skagerrak traffic as luxury ships
3) After another 10-20 years, the more worn out ships were sold to English Channel traffic as luxury ships
4) Finally, they were sold to Mediterranean or South East Asia for just ships.

Later, the ferry strategy of Tallink has been somewhat turbulent, and the overcapacity has changed rules.

Romantika and her sister Victoria I were the basis of the next series of the three Galaxy class ferries.


----------



## Ni3lS

ChrisZwolle said:


> I doubt if I would use it myself, I don't mind the drive up to Norway and the cost for the ferry is pretty steep, though competitive with fuel, tolls and hotel on a drive from the Netherlands to Norway via Denmark and Sweden.


I also don't mind the drive, but for me the calculation was quite convincing. I could have saved an additional 75 EUR if I had booked earlier. With what we paid it pretty much equaled our fuel and toll cost at the time. Traveling time would have been about equal as well, with the difference that you don't arrive as rested compared to taking the ferry. The fact that I would have put probably 1000+ additional kilometers on the odometer if I had driven instead of taken the ferry was basically what made the decision easy. When factoring in the depreciation it's a clear win for the ferry. When I first looked for a one-way from Eemshaven to Kristiansand in February last year, I found prices for as low as 250 excluding a cabin which is mandatory. The cheapest cabin costs 75 EUR and it's just fine. The prices were for beginning of June, which is technically low season but also one of the best months to visit Norway.


----------



## Ni3lS

I actually checked the prices just now for similar dates that we went last year and it looks like they raised the prices by quite a bit. Cheapest I saw for a one-way is 660 EUR, 2 persons and 1 standard car <5 m. But that's presumably without the cabin, which costs 75 EUR minimum. That's almost 300 EUR more than what we paid and the fuel prices went down over time, so now I'd say it would be worthwhile to drive instead.


----------



## MattiG

Ni3lS said:


> I actually checked the prices just now for similar dates that we went last year and it looks like they raised the prices by quite a bit. Cheapest I saw for a one-way is 660 EUR, 2 persons and 1 standard car <5 m. But that's presumably without the cabin, which costs 75 EUR minimum. That's almost 300 EUR more than what we paid and the fuel prices went down over time, so now I'd say it would be worthwhile to drive instead.


A similar trend seems to exists on ferries between Finland and Sweden. They seem now to be double compared to the mid-season prices before the Covid-19 time.


----------



## MattiG

(Aargh)


----------



## Rob73

MattiG said:


> 3) After another 10-20 years, the more worn out ships were sold to English Channel traffic as luxury ships
> .


The English channel is the busiest ferry route in Europe, which operator is buying clapped out ex Baltic ferries for this route, because it's not P&O, DFDS or Irish Ferries.


----------

