The Norwegian Public Roads Administration NRPA is to have an overview of the threats to and the vulnerability of the road network, and work across its own organsation (and together with other agencies) in necessary contingency planning in order to ensure the best possible accessibility under changing conditions and/or possible or actual threats. How?
I will be changing jobs and relocating in early 2012. I will be leaving academia and research and continue the governmental and administrative career I left 6 years ago. Having said the above, I will not leave supply chain risk or this blog behind.
Rassikring av veger har en klar samfunnsøkonomisk nytteverdi, men hvor stor er den? De største gevinstene er knyttet til å unngå omkjøring, skape trygghet og redusere antall ulykker. Hvordan måler man dette i kroner?
The Norwegian government intends to spend some 320,000,000 NOK ($45,000,000,000) on transport infrastructure over the next 10 years.Will Norway be able to save its crumbling infrastructure without a disaster like the Minnesota bridge collapse?
Norway’s transport infrastructure is way behind much of Europe, but today Norway’s government is presenting it’s development plans for the Norwegian transport infrastructure for 2010 to 2019 (Nasjonal Transportplan 2010-2019).
Ah…the complacency of being oil rich. So complacent, in fact, that we forget about our infrastructure.
In overall infrastructure quality, Norway ranks 28/134, behind many other European countries, which is not too bad, but when it comes to road quality, Norway ranks 48/134, even behind countries such as Namibia (23/134), Tunisia (39/134) and Botswana (44/134).
Norway spent less money on road investments in 2007 than in 1995, that is, if you count in % of GDP. Is that a correct way of looking at it? Is that a correct way of looking at it?
It is not the planning authorities or the central government who decides infrastructure development in Norway, but the local politicians. To put it simple, what in the US is known as “pork barrel spending” is what rules many of Norway’s infrastructure development projects. Why?
Comparing average speed on roads in 13 countries, it turns out that travelling in central Europe is several times much faster than in Norway. Norwegian roads are sub-standard compared to much of Europe. Anyone who has ever been to Norway will agree.
Sparse transportation networks, like in Norway, are a recipe for supply chain disruptions. Furthermore, unlike in regions with a dense transportation network, supply chain management in a sparse network setting comes close to being business continuity management.
In a recent study undertaken by the Molde Research Institute in Norway, a point is made that the typical socio-economic impact of road network disruptions in Western Norway varies greatly, depending on a) the traffic volume, b) the actual possibilities of rerouting traffic and c) the composition of the traffic that uses the impacted road.
It is unfortunate that the decision-making process for infrastructure projects in Norway rests heavily on local and regional governments and less on the oversight of the national planning authorities. Overall socio-economic benefit is set aside to satisfy local desires or is simply overruled by successful local lobbyists.
Improving roads standards is not just a traffic safety issue, but is also a major contributor towards reducing transportation costs and improving overall supply chain quality.
The strength of the Norwegian impact assesment method is how non-monetizable impacts are handled and integrated with the framework of the impact assessment. The significance of the various impacts is then assessed by combining the value and the magnitude of impact on five criteria: landscape/cityscape, community life and outdoor recreation, cultural heritage, natural environment and natural resources.
