# Rate road system of these countries



## Angelos (Dec 20, 2006)

Countries i ve been :

UK : 5 ( Too crowded and many missing links)

France: 8.0 ( Very nice with low traffic volumes but expensive and bad signage)

Germany : 9 (Nothing bad to say except some bad maintained sections)

Belgium: 6.5 ( Well litten but very very bad maintained )

Netherlands: 7.5 ( Very well maintained, high traffic volumes and there are small missing links although latetly there are many projects going on)

Luxembourg: 7 

Switzerland : 8 ( Breathtaking scenery, many tunnels-bridges but too crowded)

Italy: 9 (Simple awesome roads, fun to drive nothing bad to say.

Greece: 7.5 ( Nice scenery , well maintained , low traffic volumes but many missing links)


----------



## rpc08 (Mar 28, 2008)

Germany: 8.5
Spain: 8.5
Luxembourg: 8
France: 8
Switzerland: 6.5
Portugal: 6
Belgium: 5.5


----------



## x-type (Aug 19, 2005)

France: 9,5 (only because of weird design of direction signs)
Germany: 9 (baustellen and sometimes bad or substandard sections)
Italy: 9,5 (the best quality of motorways, just sometimes too crowded)
Spain: 9,5 (sometimes confusing signalization; the best state roads - maybe the best overall)
Austria: 7 (poor and badly visible signalization, sometimes lack of maintenance)
Croatia: 7,5 (too narrow roads and sometimes unstandardized signalization which irritates)
Hungary: 8,5 (great motorways, occasionaly quite poor state roads)
Czech Rep.: 8 (good state roads, occasionaly quite poor motorways)


----------



## Superkot634 (Apr 9, 2007)

*My opinion:*

Germany: 10 - Motorways and other roads are in excellent condition.
Spain: 9.5 - Motorways and other roads are in excellent condition.
France: 9.5 - Motorways and other roads are in excellent condition.
Belgium: 8,5 - Motorways and other roads are in good condition.
Hungary: 8 - Motorways in excellent condition. National roads, good condition.
Lithuania: 7 - National roads good condition.
Latvia: 3,5 - National roads poor condition.
Poland: 2,5 - Very good highway. The poor state of national and local roads.
Ukraine: 2 - The poor state of national and local roads.


----------



## Fabiano_Katowice (Sep 8, 2011)

Germany: 9
Spain: 9
France: 9
UK: 8
Poland: 7,5
Austria: 7 
Hungary: 7
Czech Rep.: 6
Slovakia 5


----------



## Angulo (Nov 4, 2011)

This was my rate in April.


Angulo said:


> Germany: 8,5
> Austria: 7,5
> Denmark: 7
> Czech Republic: 6
> ...


Now I have to change something (more kilometres, more experience in Europe).

Austria: 8 (+0,5)
Denmark: 7
Czech Republic: 6
Slovakia: 4,5 (-0,5)hno:
Ukraine: 2,5 (+0,5)
Italy: 8
Hungary: 7
Poland: 7,5 (new sections of A/S was opened, +0,5)
Germany: 8,5
France: 9
Slovenia: 7
Croatia: 6


----------



## whatever... (Feb 23, 2006)

^^ I mean no offense, but that's just absurd. In no way are roads in Poland better than those in Slovenia, Slovakia, Czech rep., Hungary or even Croatia.


----------



## Beck's (Nov 30, 2009)

Germany: 9(good all of the roads)
Czech republic: 7(dense network of highways and the surface of them)
Hungary: 7(the same as in Chech republic)
Poland: 6(very good highways, but more of them are needed, good national roads, poor local ones)
Slovakia: 6(the same as in Poland)
Ukraine: 2(lack of the highways, poor national and local roads)


----------



## Name user 1 (Feb 13, 2011)

whatever... said:


> ^^ I mean no offense, but that's just absurd. In no way are roads in Poland better than those in Slovenia, Slovakia, Czech rep., Hungary or even Croatia.


I agree, in statistic like 1 km of highway, roadway or 1st class road pre capita or per km2, Poland is lacking behind mentioned countries..


----------



## Groningen NL (Dec 26, 2010)

The German Autobahn network is great, but some of the local roads in Eastern Germany are horrible. Trust me, I go there twice a year. 

What do you guys think about the roads in my home country?


----------



## rakcancer (Sep 2, 2010)

Name user 1 said:


> I agree, in statistic like 1 km of highway, roadway or 1st class road pre capita or per km2, Poland is lacking behind mentioned countries..


Statistics are statistics. The fact is that Poland has most modern motorways and expressways opened in last 5 years. The question is if you have ever driven in Poland or you just look at numbers?


----------



## rakcancer (Sep 2, 2010)

Australia - 9 (I could give 10 just for incredible nature. beautifully shaped highways in central and Western Australia for easy overtaking looooong road trains. Unfortunately lots of dead kangaroos killed by trucks at night)
Japan - 10 (perfect roads, perfect drivers, lots of signage and electronic information systems)
USA - 8 (too much congestion around bigger cities otherwise it is so easy to drive in US)
Canada - 8 (as above)
Argentina - 6 (south american version of US motorways)
Chile - 7 (better quality south american version of US motorways)
Germany - 9 (disciplined drivers)
England - 8 ( drive OK, some confusions on so common roundabouts)
Spain - 8 (lots of new motorways, expressways)
Poland - 7 (motorways and expressways are very good, lots of constructions, drivers on local roads sometimes too fast and too brave)


----------



## shpirtkosova (Jun 7, 2009)

Serbia - 2 : poorly maintained motorway from Belgrade to Nis. The road from Nis to the border with Kosovo feels like driving in Africa. If you are cought speeding you can easily get away with it by buying the cop a coffee (5 Euros should do it). I don't know how much coffee one can drink a day. I gave 2 points because they have built some pretty good bridges in Belgrade. The motorway in Vojvodina from Subotca to Belgrade is pretty good too. I hope they maintain it properly.


----------



## hofburg (Jun 27, 2009)

Groningen NL said:


> What do you guys think about the roads in my home country?


is that a retoric question?


----------



## Diggerdog (Sep 24, 2008)

In my opinion - again, only personal experience. This should also apply to smaller roads, not just highways and national routes. It is a bit subjective too, because a dodgy little back road in Tuscany is somehow beautiful and acceptable, whereas if it was somewhere else might be not so...

Europe:

Uk: 8

France: 9

Germany: 9

Italy: 8

Portugal: 8

Spain: 9

Netherlands: 9

Belgium: 9

Turkey: 7

Africa:

South Africa: 7

Namibia: 7 (Namibia has world class, almost perfect national routes, built largely by the South African Military during the Angolan War. With Namibia's tiny population, the roads are still in excellent condition)

Egypt: 5

Mozambique: 2 (However, the main routes along the coast are much better than the overall rating)

Asia:

Malaysia: 7

Thailand: 6

Oceania:

Australia: 7 (Inland routes are often in surprisingly poor condition e.g. driving up the west coast, or inland NSW)


----------



## Botev1912 (Oct 18, 2006)

Germany 8
Spain 10
Italy 8
Canada 6
USA 7
Bulgaria 4
Croatia 6
Slovenia 7
Serbia 2


----------



## MattiG (Feb 11, 2011)

Groningen NL said:


> What do you guys think about the roads in my home country?


A high population density causes the main road network being rather congested, especially those trade routes full or trucks, and the lower network being extremely slow. But technically, the roads are first class.

If I am constrained by timetables, I try to avoid the most crowded areas of Benelux.


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

*My ratings*

I'm considering only higher-profile highways/expressways, not urban streets or country roads, and I'm rating only countries where I've driven personally. 

*Europe*
Italy - 7
Netherlands - 8
Portugal - 8
Spain - 9
France - 7
Switzerland - 7
Austria - 7
Germany - 8
Belgium - 6
Luxembourg - 8

*North America*
USA - 8

*South America*
Brazil - 2
Argentina - 3


----------



## italystf (Aug 2, 2011)

Name user 1 said:


> I agree, in statistic like 1 km of highway, roadway or 1st class road pre capita or per km2, Poland is lacking behind mentioned countries..


That kind of statistic doesn't make any sense. The density of the road network is totally irrelevant if not compared with the population density and distribution. Oterwise countries such Australia, Canada and Scandinavian countries appear to have the worst networks of the world.


----------



## Bad_Hafen (May 19, 2010)

*Europe:*

France:9

Germany:10

Italy:8

Spain:8

Denmark:7

Poland:4

Netherlands:7

Austria:8

Croatia:8


----------



## Bad_Hafen (May 19, 2010)

Botev1912 said:


> Germany 8
> Spain 10
> Italy 8
> Canada 6
> ...


My God Bulgaria 4, Croatia 6 and Serbia 2. :nuts:
It should be forbidden for Bulgarians to vote for Serbia.
I would add also Albanians here because their hatred toward Serbia is epic, example this very known chauvinist out of all countries voted only for Serbia, I know it is his home country but still: 


shpirtkosova said:


> Serbia - 2 : poorly maintained motorway from Belgrade to Nis. The road from Nis to the border with Kosovo feels like driving in Africa. If you are cought speeding you can easily get away with it by buying the cop a coffee (5 Euros should do it). I don't know how much coffee one can drink a day. I gave 2 points because they have built some pretty good bridges in Belgrade. The motorway in Vojvodina from Subotca to Belgrade is pretty good too. I hope they maintain it properly.



I would also notice that Polish people are so bias, they rate polish roads better than Austrian, Slovenian etc. The fact is that they lack motorways, national roads are in poor condition and lot of them crowded, and local roads are terrible I have driven trough Poland from south to north.


----------



## Superkot634 (Apr 9, 2007)

Unfortunately, that's right. In addition to highways, the rest of the roads are in bad shape.

Common sight, even on country roads.


----------



## rakcancer (Sep 2, 2010)

It happens but it is not common so it doesn't represent real situation. This kind of pictures you can find for *any country*. Just type something like "bad road" in google. So stop trolling here.


----------



## Beck's (Nov 30, 2009)

Bad_Hafen said:


> The fact is that they lack motorways.


Nowadays we have around 2000 km. of motorways in use and 1000 km. underconstructed. Of course it's insufficient, we are behind most of the European Union countires, but we have made a big progress in last few years. 



rakcancer said:


> It happens but it is not common so it doesn't represent real situation. This kind of pictures you can find for *any country*. Just type something like "bad road" in google. So stop trolling here.


A totally agree with you. There are in Poland some national roads with bad shape like on the picture above, however is only an exeption.


----------



## Penn's Woods (Apr 8, 2010)

italystf said:


> That kind of statistic doesn't make any sense. The density of the road network is totally irrelevant if not compared with the population density and distribution. Oterwise countries such Australia, Canada and Scandinavian countries appear to have the worst networks of the world.


Well, there are huge swaths of the *populated* parts of Canada that are freewayless....


----------



## Hayaki (Nov 6, 2012)

Asia

China: 8
Japan: 10
Turkey: 8
Iran: 7
India: 5
South Korea: 9
Indonesia: 6
Malaysia: 7
Thailand: 7
Philippines: 7 
Australia: 9


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

Penn's Woods said:


> Well, there are huge swaths of the *populated* parts of Canada that are freewayless....


Yes, Canada is very backwards in that it doesn't have a full highway link between Vancouver and Halifax (and it is not like only a few sectors are missing links).


----------



## Bad_Hafen (May 19, 2010)

Beck's said:


> Nowadays we have around 2000 km. of motorways in use and 1000 km. underconstructed. Of course it's insufficient, we are behind most of the European Union countires, but we have made a big progress in last few years.


yes you made great progress, but you are still behind all those countries I mentioned.


----------



## Botev1912 (Oct 18, 2006)

Suburbanist said:


> I'm considering only higher-profile highways/expressways, not urban streets or country roads, and I'm rating only countries where I've driven personally.
> 
> *Europe*
> Italy - 7
> ...


Why do you think France and Italy are below USA? And why are Brazil and Argentina so low?


----------



## Botev1912 (Oct 18, 2006)

Penn's Woods said:


> Well, there are huge swaths of the *populated* parts of Canada that are freewayless....


one example is Vancouver, BC. They have something like a freeway Canada 1, which is a complete joke because there are a lot of curves and it's very narrow, so you can't really drive faster than 80 km/h. All other roads have traffic signals. That's why traffic in Vancouver is one of the worst in North America even though they have a skytrain. I can't imagine what it would be without it.


----------



## ChrisZwolle (May 7, 2006)

Vancouver probably has the poorest road network of any major western city... I think even London has a better road network. Vancouver's average commute times are significantly longer than Los Angeles for instance.


----------



## Penn's Woods (Apr 8, 2010)

I was thinking, really, of the lack of a national freeway network. Look at tne northern Great Plains - Montana, the Dakotas, Wyoming, Nebraska.... - and how sparsely those states are populated. Then look just north of them, to Saskatchewan, Manitoba, northern Ontario. Is there an inch of freeway in Canada between southern Ontario and Alberta outside of the big cities? I have to believe that those provinces' road system is what the roads of Montana, the Dakotas and so on would look like without the Interstate system. I mean I assume the only reason those states have freeways is that the Federal government paid for them. Which raises the question (I don't know the answer) of why nothing like that happened in Canada. Look at I-15 and I-29, which end right at the border and connect to nothing in particular. Surely a freeway from the top of I-29 to Winnipeg would seem like an obvious thing to do....

[DISCLAIMER: And I'm not picking on Canada, a country I like very much.... END DISCLAIMER]


----------



## Botev1912 (Oct 18, 2006)

ChrisZwolle said:


> Vancouver probably has the poorest road network of any major western city... I think even London has a better road network. Vancouver's average commute times are significantly longer than Los Angeles for instance.


I went to Vancouver in September. It took me 1 hour and 35 minutes to get to the border (100 miles) and then more than 1 hour and 30 minutes from the border to downtown Vancouver for 40 kilometers (25 miles)! It was a nightmare. And it always is. I was wondering if a Canadian wants to go from Vancouver to Toronto by car, would they take I-90 in the US? That would very funny and tragic at the same time. And don't get me wrong. I really like Canada and Vancouver, but their freeway network is worse than Serbia and Bulgaria. The only better thing is the road surface which is usually smooth.


----------



## ed110220 (Nov 12, 2008)

Penn's Woods said:


> I was thinking, really, of the lack of a national freeway network. Look at tne northern Great Plains - Montana, the Dakotas, Wyoming, Nebraska.... - and how sparsely those states are populated. Then look just north of them, to Saskatchewan, Manitoba, northern Ontario. Is there an inch of freeway in Canada between southern Ontario and Alberta outside of the big cities? I have to believe that those provinces' road system is what the roads of Montana, the Dakotas and so on would look like without the Interstate system. I mean I assume the only reason those states have freeways is that the Federal government paid for them. Which raises the question (I don't know the answer) of why nothing like that happened in Canada. Look at I-15 and I-29, which end right at the border and connect to nothing in particular. Surely a freeway from the top of I-29 to Winnipeg would seem like an obvious thing to do....
> 
> [DISCLAIMER: And I'm not picking on Canada, a country I like very much.... END DISCLAIMER]


Perhaps the question could be better put the other way round: why did the USA build interstate highways to freeway standard in very sparsely terrain where traffic densities are very low? I believe the lowest is actually less than 1 000 vehicles/day. I can't think of any other country that has built such a network.

After all, given a good standard of alignment in open country, together with little traffic, high speeds are not too much of a problem (120 km/h roughly) on non-freeway standard roads. The benefit of upgrading to freeway would seem small compared with the cost.


----------



## ChrisZwolle (May 7, 2006)

The cost of constructing freeways in states like Wyoming, Montana or North Dakota were very low, often just a few $ 100,000 per mile. A lot of land was government-owned.

Rural two-lane roads with long-distance traffic is the most dangerous road type there is. A freeway is much safer. While 1,000 vehicles per day is recorded at a few locations, those are statistical outliers. Most Interstates in rural states carry more than 7,000 - 8,000 vehicles per day. Still low, but not empty.


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

ed110220 said:


> Perhaps the question could be better put the other way round: why did the USA build interstate highways to freeway standard in very sparsely terrain where traffic densities are very low? I believe the lowest is actually less than 1 000 vehicles/day. I can't think of any other country that has built such a network.
> 
> After all, given a good standard of alignment in open country, together with little traffic, high speeds are not too much of a problem (120 km/h roughly) on non-freeway standard roads. The benefit of upgrading to freeway would seem small compared with the cost.


These sectors with low traffic also barely have any exits at all. Sometimes exists are 20-30 miles apart.


----------



## ed110220 (Nov 12, 2008)

ChrisZwolle said:


> The cost of constructing freeways in states like Wyoming, Montana or North Dakota were very low, often just a few $ 100,000 per mile. A lot of land was government-owned.
> 
> Rural two-lane roads with long-distance traffic is the most dangerous road type there is. A freeway is much safer. While 1,000 vehicles per day is recorded at a few locations, those are statistical outliers. Most Interstates in rural states carry more than 7,000 - 8,000 vehicles per day. Still low, but not empty.


Are they really? I don't think a rural two-lane road is particularly dangerous if it is open terrain, with good alignment (ie near freeway standard). Most serious accidents seem to happen on roads of a poor standard such as where there are sharp bends, steep inclines, poor sightlines with hidden intersections etc.

Can anyone else think of another country that has an extensive network of rural, relatively lightly-trafficked freeways like the USA? It seems unique to me.


----------



## ChrisZwolle (May 7, 2006)

Japan and South Korea also have a lot of low-trafficked expressways. Often with a lot of expensive objects like tunnels and bridges. Spain also has many motorways with low volumes.


----------



## ed110220 (Nov 12, 2008)

ChrisZwolle said:


> Japan and South Korea also have a lot of low-trafficked expressways. Often with a lot of expensive objects like tunnels and bridges. Spain also has many motorways with low volumes.


True, but they are not very large countries with very large sparely populated tracts like the USA or Canada. Spain is large by European standards, but I don't think it is in the same league of remoteness. I'm thinking more Australia, Russia, Brazil etc.


----------



## Mark19 (Mar 8, 2010)

hey what about, Central America, El Salvador, we have the best highways of the region


----------



## Xpressway (Dec 2, 2006)

*United States:* 
Hawaii, California and Florida happen to have great highways despite what american forumers say about them. 

I give them an 8. (Not a 10 because some highways are badly congested and they need an urgent increase in capacity).

*Argentina:*
There are some highways that seemed to work well long time ago, now the infrastructure is in bad condition and their highway system isn't extensive enough. 

I give them a 2.

*Brazil:*
Sao Paulo seems to have the best highways in all Latin America IMO, sadly the rest of the country has really bad highways and many of them I tried in other states where awful despite being opened not long ago.

I give them a 3.

*Chile:*
Expansive highway system although many of the chilean highways don't meet highway standards and they lack descent interchanges (mostly cloverleaves and diamonds), bad entrance lanes and bad exit lanes. 

I give them a 4 for expansion but can't be rated higher because of the super low quality designs.


*Colombia:*

Not much to say about this, horrible roads and highways in all the country.

I give them a 1

*Venezuela:*

They seemed to have good highways back then, now just like Argentina the system hasn't expanded much and the highways aren't well mantained.

Can't give more than a 2.


----------



## Botev1912 (Oct 18, 2006)

ed110220 said:


> Can anyone else think of another country that has an extensive network of rural, relatively lightly-trafficked freeways like the USA? It seems unique to me.


Freeways are not only for local use. They are also used by people who travel long distances (delivery trucks, people going on vacations, people who are moving to a far place). In Europe freeways are mostly used for long distance travels. If you want to go from Vancouver to Toronto, you have to go to the US and take I-90 or take the plane because Canada doesn't have fast-speed rails either.


----------



## Road_UK (Jun 20, 2011)

rakcancer said:


> It happens but it is not common so it doesn't represent real situation. This kind of pictures you can find for *any country*. Just type something like "bad road" in google. So stop trolling here.


No you can't. Not in western Europe anyway. Not even in Belgium. This is a very Polish road. And stating an opinion is not trolling.


----------



## flierfy (Mar 4, 2008)

The assessment of the road infrastructure in the latest Competitive Report of the World Economic Forum reads like this. They use a scale from 1 (underdeveloped) to 7 (efficient). The number in brackets are the rank among the 144 assessed countries.

Americas

United States - 5,7 (20)
Mexico - 4,5 (50)
Canada - 5,9 (16)
Argentina - 3,0 (106)
Brazil - 2,7 (123)
Chile - 5,6 (23)
Colombia - 2,6 (126)
Venezuela - 2,6 (128)

Europe

UK - 5,6 (24)
France - 6,5 (1)
Germany - 6,1 (10)
Italy - 4,3 (57)
Portugal - 6,4 (4)
Russia - 2,3 (136) of 144 viewed countries
Spain - 5,9 (13)
Denmark - 5,7 (19)
Poland - 2,6 (124) 2 ranks behind Serbia
Netherlands - 6,0 (11)
Austria - 6,3 (7)
Croatia - 5,3 (29)

Africa

South Africa - 4,9 (42)
Egypt - 2,9 (109)
Morocco - 4,0 (70)
Nigeria - 2,8 (114)

Asia

China - 4,4 (54)
Japan - 5,9 (14)
Turkey - 4,9 (43)
Iran - 4,0 (68)
India - 3,5 (86)
South Korea - 5,8 (17)
Indonesia - 3,4 (90)
Malaysia - 5,4 (27)
Thailand - 5,0 (39)
Philippines - 3,4 (87)

Oceania

Australia - 5,1 (36)
New Zealand - 4,9 (41)

The top 20 in this ranking are:

1 France ...........................................6.5
2 United Arab Emirates ........................6.5
3 Singapore .......................................6.5
4 Portugal .........................................6.4
5 Oman .............................................6.4
6 Switzerland .....................................6.4
7 Austria ...........................................6.3
8 Hong Kong SAR ................................6.3
9 Finland ...........................................6.1
10 Germany .......................................6.1
11 Netherlands ...................................6.0
12 Saudi Arabia ..................................6.0
13 Spain ............................................5.9
14 Japan ............................................5.9
15 Luxembourg ....................................5.9
16 Canada ..........................................5.9
17 Korea, Rep. ....................................5.8
18 Bahrain ..........................................5.8
19 Denmark ........................................5.7
20 United States .................................5.7


----------



## Botev1912 (Oct 18, 2006)

In conclusion, everything has to be compared to Serbia.


----------



## italystf (Aug 2, 2011)

flierfy said:


> The assessment of the road infrastructure in the latest Competitive Report of the World Economic Forum reads like this. They use a scale from 1 (underdeveloped) to 7 (efficient). The number in brackets are the rank among the 144 assessed countries.
> 
> Americas
> 
> ...


No way Italy is worse than South Africa, Turkey, Malaysia and Thailand.


----------



## Verso (Jun 5, 2006)

flierfy said:


> The assessment of the road infrastructure in the latest Competitive Report of the World Economic Forum reads like this.





> How would you assess the roads in your country?


Assessment based on what people think? Not very objective.


----------



## Beck's (Nov 30, 2009)

Verso said:


> Assessment based on what people think? Not very objective.


That's true. There are not any objective figures, statistic datas, so it's hard to recognize the report.


----------



## Superkot634 (Apr 9, 2007)

flierfy said:


> The assessment of the road infrastructure in the latest Competitive Report of the World Economic Forum reads like this. They use a scale from 1 (underdeveloped) to 7 (efficient). The number in brackets are the rank among the 144 assessed countries.
> 
> Americas
> 
> ...


This report can be put in the ass, is so honest and true... (I'm sorry for the words)


----------



## piotr71 (Sep 8, 2009)

Road_UK said:


> No you can't. Not in western Europe anyway. *Not even in Belgium*. This is a very Polish road. And stating an opinion is not trolling.





















Some more from THE Western Europe?


----------



## g.spinoza (Jul 21, 2010)

italystf said:


> No way Italy is worse than South Africa, Turkey, Malaysia and Thailand.


I thought the same, but didn't want to sound nationalistic, which I'm not.


----------



## flierfy (Mar 4, 2008)

The Belgian road is wider, it has better road markings and could even be lit at night. The ruts alone don't put both roads on the same level.


----------



## flierfy (Mar 4, 2008)

italystf said:


> No way Italy is worse than South Africa, Turkey, Malaysia and Thailand.


I presume you have been to all of these countries. Otherwise you wouldn't be so determined, would you.


----------



## xrtn2 (Jan 12, 2011)

italystf said:


> No way Italy is worse than South Africa, Turkey, Malaysia and Thailand.


+1

Brazil worse than Egypt and Nigeria. :nuts:


----------



## g.spinoza (Jul 21, 2010)

flierfy said:


> I presume you have been to all of these countries.


There's no need to be there. Malaysia has 1600 km of motorways, Thailand only 145. One hundred forty-five. Italy's motorways are 6600 km long. Just this fact shows how rubbish those statistics are.


----------



## ChrisZwolle (May 7, 2006)

Perhaps the list is based on quality, not quantity.


----------



## g.spinoza (Jul 21, 2010)

ChrisZwolle said:


> Perhaps the list is based on quality, not quantity.


Maybe, but you cannot compare 145 km of network against 6600, or more. Statistics are useful, but they must be made with a grain of salt.


----------



## italystf (Aug 2, 2011)

g.spinoza said:


> I thought the same, but didn't want to sound nationalistic, which I'm not.


It's not nationalism, I would have said the same if they had put another western Europe country behind those countries.


----------



## flierfy (Mar 4, 2008)

g.spinoza said:


> There's no need to be there. Malaysia has 1600 km of motorways, Thailand only 145. One hundred forty-five. Italy's motorways are 6600 km long. Just this fact shows how rubbish those statistics are.


The WEF assessed the entire road networks of countries. Not just motorways.


----------



## Road_UK (Jun 20, 2011)

piotr71 said:


> Some more from THE Western Europe?


That is actually one of the better quality of roads to be found in Belgium. Unfortunately it has been damaged by lorries. Not an uncommon sight in Belgium, and Belgium has the worst quality of roads in western Europe. 

However:









This is apparently in Poland. You can't find a road like that anywhere in Belgium. I have driven on a lot of roads like that in Poland. Very uncomfortable driving!

Stop defending your country so much. Poland is a fine country, with lovely city's, villages and countryside. Just accept the problem...


----------



## Superkot634 (Apr 9, 2007)

^^
In Poland, it looks like this. Charts this year should be changed because this year was a bit of renovation.



*Green - good, Red - bad, Yellow - average.*


----------



## Sponsor (Mar 19, 2006)

yellow is literally 'unsatisfactory' and what does it mean we can only guess.


----------



## Superkot634 (Apr 9, 2007)

^^
Hm... Road in this state, there is no holes or ruts. May be uneven, but I'm not 100% sure.


----------



## Beck's (Nov 30, 2009)

Unsatisfactory means that you can drive as safe without damaging car(no ruts, potholes), but a road surface is a little bit damaged(cracks, patches) and requires some renowation in next couple of years.


----------



## xrtn2 (Jan 12, 2011)

São Paulo State - Road quality index.

Blue= Excellent

Red= Very bad.


----------



## Serodczanin (Jul 14, 2009)

Poland *9*
The state of expressway and highways is perfect. The main road (country roads) are near to perfect too. And other roads are good or on the state little bit worse than good. Bad roads are exceptions, forget about stupid stereotypes, if they are existing. Wonderful web of roads.

Slovakia
I was long time ago so I don't remember. But they was generally good.

Czech Republic *7*
Worse and more boring than in Poland. But they are good.

Greece *8*
Little bit betther than Czech Republic, but I saw some roads in bed condition.

Egypt *7*
Main roads are in perfect condition (I was shocked) but probably other roads was often dirty roads, where driving is uncomfortable. Culture of driving doesn't exist in this country.

Israel *8*
Good roads, but nothing special.

Croatia *8*
Perfect highways, genneraly every road is in good state. If to bear in mind, that is the mountain country.

Montenegro *7*
If to bear in mind, that is the mountain country, roads are good. But doesn't exist 1 km of highway.

Albania *6*
Generally is far to perfect. Anyways I was positive shocked about this country. I saw 10 km highway, but that wasn't highway in mind of Europe people.

Bosnia and Herzegovina *7*
The next positive shock.

But everywhere except Poland was driving only on main roads. Sometimes out of them (for exaple dirty road in Egypt).


----------



## ChrisZwolle (May 7, 2006)

Serodczanin said:


> Poland *9*
> The state of expressway and highways is perfect. The main road (country roads) are near to perfect too. And other roads are good or on the state little bit worse than good. Bad roads are exceptions, forget about stupid stereotypes, if they are existing. Wonderful web of roads.


I know Poland made a lot of progress in recent years, but your judgment is unrealistic. Mediocre and poor national roads are still found in all parts of the country.


----------



## Superkot634 (Apr 9, 2007)

^^
*ChrisZwolle*

Opinion Serdoczanin is greatly exaggerated, a fact. In Poland 100% of the national roads cannot renovate, it is not feasible. Apart from these facts, as you give Polish roads from the map?


----------



## Beck's (Nov 30, 2009)

I think there is no such a country in the world, in which all the national roads are renovated, even more in Poland.


----------



## ed110220 (Nov 12, 2008)

What exactly are the criteria for rating? On the one hand you could have a country that has very good infrastructure in _absolute_ terms (ie many freeways, built to a high standard etc) but inadequate for the country's needs. On the other you could have a country with very modest roads which more than meet the needs of transport in that country. What would rank higher?

Imagine a country that was just a small island with two villages. If you built a well maintained two-lane road between them it would probably be a better solution than many of the impressive national road networks...


----------



## Verso (Jun 5, 2006)

Some Poles seem to be living in a fairy tale. :nuts:


----------



## piotr71 (Sep 8, 2009)

ed110220 said:


> What exactly are the criteria for rating?(..)


That's a good question!

I think, it would be a good idea to establish a benchmark here. In my opinion, Luxembourg should be located on the top of the list. There are virtually no bad roads in this small country.

*Surface:* just about perfect, very quiet and smooth, however some cracks can be found. 9

*Signage*: very good. They sourced the best features from their neighbours, stuck them together and got clear and aesthetic set of signs. 10

*Road markings*: Very clear, however I am fan of double dividing middle lane, so for that reason only 9.

*Traffic calming infrastructure*: Highest standard. 10

*Pedestrians and cyclist infrastructure*. Not sure. Maybe someone more experienced in this matter could give a clue.

*Lighting*. Roads are perfectly lit. 10


----------



## Verso (Jun 5, 2006)

piotr71 said:


> *Signage*: very good. They sourced the best features from their neighbours, stuck them together and got clear and aesthetic set of signs. 10


I don't like signage in Luxembourg. I don't find it aesthetic at all.


----------



## piotr71 (Sep 8, 2009)

piotr71 said:


> That's a good question!
> 
> I think, it would be a good idea to establish a benchmark here. In my opinion, Luxembourg should be located on the top of the list. There are virtually no bad roads in this small country.


Well, let's try to compare a country, which...never mind what. 
Poland. 



> *Surface:* just about perfect, very quiet and smooth, however some cracks can be found. 9


Newly paved roads are no less smooth or quiet to the Luxembourgian ones. However, even if the amount of newly paved roads in Poland increased significantly comparing to the last decade, it still not enough to say they are as good as LUX roads. Ruts, uneven patches, some potholes and cracks can still be found, but not to often on main trunk corridors. I would honestly rate them at 6. 



> *Signage*: very good. They sourced the best features from their neighbours, stuck them together and got clear and aesthetic set of signs. 10


It's pretty clear and quite nice to the eye, however, because motorways became kind of novum to our country, authorities did not cope with adjusting its size correctly, neither destinations are adequate. Lack of clear motorways' and expressways' junctions numbers does not help either. 6



> *Road markings*: Very clear, however I am fan of double dividing middle lane, so for that reason only 9.


Not much to say about it. It's just auxiliary signage in Poland, so not that important as in countries with no winter. Average European level. Double dividing line helps to get 8 here.



> *Traffic calming infrastructure*: Highest standard. 10


Not very advanced yet. 4



> *Pedestrians and cyclist infrastructure*. Not sure. Maybe someone more experienced in this matter could give a clue.


?I know it's getting better, but if we rank the Netherlans on the top here, Poland would get no more than 4 points.



> *Lighting*. Roads are perfectly lit. 10


Roads in smaller towns and villages are a little too dark. Main roads' crossroads and junctions are very well lit. It's not as good as in Belgium, but far better than in Germany. 8 



Verso said:


> I don't like signage in Luxembourg. I don't find it aesthetic at all.


Ok. De gustibus non est disputandum. Do you find it clear?


----------



## ChrisZwolle (May 7, 2006)

Luxembourg signage is okay. It's better than Belgium and France, but worse than Germany. You're the first I hear saying it's the best though.


----------



## piotr71 (Sep 8, 2009)

Actually, one of the best. I would put the Netherlands, Switzerland and Germany in the same league. I rate very highly Slovak motorways signs, as well.


----------



## Road_UK (Jun 20, 2011)

piotr71 said:


> Actually, one of the best. I would put the Netherlands, Switzerland and Germany in the same league. I rate very highly Slovak motorways signs, as well.


The number 4 in Slovakia has a weird font...


----------



## piotr71 (Sep 8, 2009)

I had to check it. It's nice


----------



## xrtn2 (Jan 12, 2011)

^^Oranges lanes?


----------



## piotr71 (Sep 8, 2009)

Yes. I kind of like this thread, so will do some more rating, if you let me to do so.

It should be one more, very important criteria added:

*Fast roads' grid density.* By fast roads I mean all motorways, out of urban area dual carriageways, single, grade separated carriageways as well as Swedish style 2+1 roads.

Well, let's start with Luxembourg.

I think, fast roads' network in this tiny land is pretty much sufficient. Apart from motorways, there is quite a number of 2+1 roads with 100km/h speed limit. Would you agree if I rate it 8?

Poland.
Well. 3 


Let me add up numbers for all categories, divide them by the number of categories and see the score. Categories I have not rated will be awarded with 5. 

*Luxembourg 8.71*

*Poland* *5.57*

I think there is no benchmark on the list above. Let's find it, then. 
Next, Belgium and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.


----------



## Moje Leto (Nov 23, 2012)

Europe: 9/10

#1 Germany 10/10
#2 Italy 10/10
#3 The Netherlands 10/10
#4 Hungary 10/10
#5 Vatican City 10/10
#6 Norway 9/10
.....
#34 Russia 6/10
#49 Belarus 2/10
#50 Poland 1/10

Africa 6/10

North America 5/10

South America 3/10


----------



## Penn's Woods (Apr 8, 2010)

Moje Leto said:


> Europe: 9/10
> 
> #1 Germany 10/10
> #2 Italy 10/10
> ...


Um, if the 34th of a list of 50 (or more) countries is a 6, I don't see how all 50 can average out to 9. 

And also, Africa's roads better than North America's? You can't be serious.


----------



## piotr71 (Sep 8, 2009)

@*Moje Leto*

Isn't it time for you?


----------



## Penn's Woods (Apr 8, 2010)

Del.


----------



## Moje Leto (Nov 23, 2012)

Penn's Woods said:


> And also, Africa's roads better than North America's? You can't be serious.


My list is based on personal experience from Namibia and Louisiana. I am dead serious.

Greetz.


----------



## Moje Leto (Nov 23, 2012)

piotr71 said:


> @*Moje Leto*
> 
> Isn't it time for you?


Indeed it is.

Greetz


----------



## ChrisZwolle (May 7, 2006)

Moje Leto said:


> My list is based on personal experience from Namibia and Louisiana. I am dead serious.


So you compared the best African country with the worst American state?


----------



## BND (May 31, 2007)

Hungary is overrated by most people. High ratings are true when only motorways are regarded. I'd give 8 for motorways, 6 for main roads and 3 for secondary roads.


----------



## piotr71 (Sep 8, 2009)

*Great Britain.*

*Network:*
There is not too large motorways' network in the UK comparing to other most developed countries in Europe. However, it is backed up by very extensive network of dual carriageways. I am not sure what the exact mileage of them is, but I would not be far from truth if say that it's at least as big as motorways. Moreover, motorways consist of one of the most advanced junctions and flyovers in Europe and mostly are 3 lane per direction. However, all dual carriageway network is still not sufficient for the amount of traffic in this country. 7

*Surface:* 
One of the worst in Europe. Noisy, porous asfalt paired up with countless number of cracks, potholes, uneven patches and poorly made repairs after drainage or electrical works, make British roads not really smooth and nice to drive. They are rather humpy and bumpy. It does not exclude motorways. On some you may find drainage system lids on left lane! Fortunately, repaving works are carried out quite quickly and there is more and more refurbished surfaces, which are of high standard. 3

*Signage:*
Pretty good actually. To me, British signage system relies too much on road markings, which sometimes are not in readable condition, but generally can't see any particular issues with it. 8

*Road markings:*
It's ok, apart from it should not be main signage in some cases. Especially on complex, multi exits roundabouts. Sometimes arrows are wiped off. 7 

*Traffic calming infrastructure:* 
Very, very good. 10

*Pedestrians and cyclist infrastructure.* 
I feel really safe as a pedestrian there. However, there are some pedestrians crossing on crossroads where only drivers can see traffic lights, no pedestrians, which make me kind of confused. Cycling infrastructure is very well developed in the UK. 9 

*Lighting.* 
Some motorways are lit on long stretches. Junctions are usually lit too. If Belgium would be on top of the list, Britain is just behind. 9

*7.57*

By now:

*Luxembourg 8.71

United Kingdom 7.57

Poland 5.57*


----------



## Road_UK (Jun 20, 2011)

Moje Leto said:


> Europe: 9/10
> 
> #1 Germany 10/10
> #2 Italy 10/10
> ...


I have never driven in the Vatican, but I am glad that their brand new motorways and expressways get a high rating from you.


----------



## Penn's Woods (Apr 8, 2010)

Road_UK said:


> I have never driven in the Vatican, but I am glad that their brand new motorways and expressways get a high rating from you.


Have you heard a used Popemobile is now available for party hire in Ireland? (I'm not making that up....)


----------



## piotr71 (Sep 8, 2009)

I heard in the radio


----------



## piotr71 (Sep 8, 2009)

*Belgium.* (pictures)

What would you say about, probaly most controversial, Belgian roads? I rate them very high, however you may have different opinion. Want to say a word. Mind, all pictures show the quality of surface, not only those in _surface_ section.

*Fast roads network.*
Very dense. Top of the list.

*Surface:* 

??

















































































































































*Signage:* 













































*Road markings:* 



















*Traffic calming infrastructure:* 














































*Pedestrians and cyclist infrastructure.*
































































*Lighting.*


----------



## xrtn2 (Jan 12, 2011)

^^

Great work.


----------



## xrtn2 (Jan 12, 2011)

There is so much tolled highways in Brazil, in my state only 3 tolled roads. 

In my region there isnt tolled road but the federal ones are very good.

Some state roads too.

:cheers:

BR 116


----------



## italystf (Aug 2, 2011)

Why a rich country like Belgium has so bad roads? I've never been there but I read that many times in this forum.


----------



## xrtn2 (Jan 12, 2011)

italystf said:


> Why a rich country like Belgium has so bad roads? I've never been there but I read that many times in this forum.


Bad roads??:nuts::nuts::nuts:Its a paradise.hahahaha


----------



## verreme (May 16, 2012)

I'll rate my country with piotr71's system, as I think it describes a country's road network very well.

*Spain.

Network:* Excellent. Motorways reach everywhere. In places they don't, existing single-carriageway roads can handle the traffic with no hassle at all; Spanish two-lane roads are among the best in Europe (shoulders, climbing lanes at high grades, nicely arranged intersections, expressway-like tunnels and viaducts to bypass mountain passes). There is also a nice network of non-motorway, dual-carriageway roads, which are mostly grade-separated. Busiest corridors often have good-quality alternate routes, and motorways with a lot of traffic get three or more lanes. Some motorways are tolled. On the other hand, interchanges may be pretty low-standard compared to the ones in Germany or the UK, with many one-lane flyovers and tight corners, and some expressways are built with very low design standards (narrow lanes, small shoulders, tight corners). But I guess every country has this kind of motorways. I give it a 9.5.

*Surface: *It depends on the road. Tolled motorways are usually well-maintained and surface is smooth. But Governments are cutting on maintenance and surface in some toll-free roads is slowly getting uneven and filled with potholes. This applies to motorways and non-motorway roads. The ones ran by local councils, often out of funding, are in particularly bad condition. A 7.

*Signage:* It is abundant and well-maintained, but directional signs have often too many road numbers and control cities are a bit random (messy road numbering and coloring system doesn't help). Font is clear and easy to read. Non-directional signage is also clear, and quantity is not a problem. We are one of the few European countries that signpost speed limits after every junction, even if it is the default one. An 8.5 for signage.

*Road markings: *Those rely highly on maintenance, and are the first to be neglected when funds run out. They are thus starting to fade and sometimes they have completely disappeared. There are of course exceptions; tolled (and shadow-tolled) Catalan motorways among them. They are good-looking, though, and fulfil their function when they are well-maintained. I'll give them a 7.

*Traffic calming infrastructure: *Total madness. As it is located mostly in roads managed by local councils, everybody did this stuff his particular way. Speed bumps were implemented long before they were regulated; most are overkill and have no maintenance at all. A 3.

*Pedestrians and cycling infrastructure:* With bicycle lanes it happens the same than with traffic calming infrastructure. Some of them are useless (i.e. painted lanes on a sidewalk that dodge trees, bus stops or benches) and some totally unnecessary (cutting one lane on a road, but barely used). No continuity to be expected when exiting a municipality. It is the worst aspect of Spanish road network. Infrastructure for pedestrians is OK; there are a lot of sidewalks, pedestrian crossings and over- and underpasses. So I think it deserves a 7.

*Lighting:* Infrastructure is there, but is often not used because of budget cuts. Most motorways are in complete darkness at night, excepting tunnels. City roads and streets are all lit. A 7.5 for lighting.

Total score is a 7.1. Would be interesting to see if other forumers share my opinion.


----------



## Botev1912 (Oct 18, 2006)

What is traffic calming infrastructure?


----------



## Road_UK (Jun 20, 2011)

Botev1912 said:


> What is traffic calming infrastructure?


Speed bumps and single file traffic flow I guess...


----------

