# E-numbering



## Wover (Feb 23, 2009)

E numbering in Finland:


----------



## treichard (Sep 5, 2009)

Are recent changes to the Euroroute system documented on the web?

I found an official 2008 route log:
http://www.unece.org/trans/conventn/ECE-TRANS-SC1-384e.pdf

But have there been changes since then?

One possible change that I'm wondering about is the vanishing of E641 (Salzburg, Austria through Germany to Worgl, Austria) in my 2010 Europe atlases. The route is shown in the 2009 version of the same atlases, but it's gone in 2010. I don't know if it had been signed along the route nor if it's presently signed. How could I find out for sure (without driving there) if that route was removed from the system?


----------



## FM 2258 (Jan 24, 2004)

Do locals ever use the E number? I remember driving in Italy I hardly noticed the E number. Highways signs aren't as easy to follow in Europe as in the U.S. in my opinion.


----------



## ChrisZwolle (May 7, 2006)

I doubt if E-numbers are the highest priority of mapmakers... Locals barely use it, even long-distance traffic follows the national numbers, as E-routes are not always signed, especially not at on-ramps or from non-motorway routes. 

What is likely to change is that E-routes that used to run on national roads, now follow new motorways. For example, E40 in western Poland is now likely to use the A4, instead of DK4.


----------



## g.spinoza (Jul 21, 2010)

FM 2258 said:


> Do locals ever use the E number? I remember driving in Italy I hardly noticed the E number. Highways signs aren't as easy to follow in Europe as in the U.S. in my opinion.


In Italy the only road better known with its E number is the "superstrada Terni-Ravenna", officialy named SS3bis. But everyone refers to it as "E45".


----------



## Uppsala (Feb 26, 2010)

Albania still don't have any E-roads. When do the first E-roads come to Albania?


----------



## CNGL (Jun 10, 2010)

We have the E07 running through my hometown . But it's at the bypass.


----------



## hetfield85 (Jun 18, 2005)

We use the E-numbering for expressways in Malaysia and normal numbering without any alphabet for federal roads.


----------



## ChrisZwolle (May 7, 2006)

In this case, the E-numbering refers to the European E-road network, not the Malaysian Expressway network  The E-roads of Malaysia are the equivalent of A, M or D-roads in Europe


----------



## CNGL (Jun 10, 2010)

^^ Yep. I believe Asian routes is Axx, like motorways in many European countries. I even have invented a fictional continental network for a fictional continent, with shields based on those of the US Interstate highways. So funny to see I-shields and German autobahn numbering, all on Catalan signage, in my fictional country!


----------



## Morsue (Mar 28, 2008)

In Sweden, E-roads are part of the national highway numbering system so everybody uses their names in daily usage. For instance, no national road can use the same number as an E-road. Rv45 became E45, and when the new E16 from Oslo to Gävle will be signposted sometime this or next year, Rv16 in Scania will disappear.


----------



## Gareth (Apr 27, 2004)

The UK doesn't use them. They're not that much use for navigating here really. I do think some routes on the continent are good though, such as the E15 through France & Spain. The scheme as a whole is a bit of a mess though.


----------



## ChrisZwolle (May 7, 2006)

The problem is the E-route scheme is a grid, while the European motorway network mostly is not. Only Germany has a significant grid, but most others have radial systems.


----------



## Glodenox (Mar 26, 2007)

When I had to drive to somewhere in the Netherlands a month ago, I was very happy to learn that I only had to follow the same road number all the time: E19 all the way.

If it wasn't for the E-numbering, I'd have to follow these numbers: A1, border Belgium-Netherlands, A16, A20, A13, A4. The E-numbering made sense on a bigger scale. I admit I had a satnav system and as such didn't have to worry too much about reading the signs, but it was still reassuring seeing the "E19" signs on the route. I knew that, should my satnav fail on me, I could just follow those signs and get home without problems.

Greetings,
Glodenox


----------



## RolexAL (Feb 22, 2010)

Uppsala said:


> Albania still don't have any E-roads. When do the first E-roads come to Albania?


Albania joined the E-road cooperation since 2006.

E762 Tirana-Podgorica

E852 Ohrid-Tirana

E853 Ioannina – Albania

E86 Korçë-Florina

E851 Petrovac-Albania.


----------



## Uppsala (Feb 26, 2010)

Look at this link.

http://www.unece.org/trans/conventn/MapAGR2007.pdf

That is very interesting. It looks like its e ferry route from Barcelona to Mazara del Vallo and from Norrköping to Ventspils. But that ferry routes has never exist. But maybe someone wanted them to exist?

How many ferry routes had a E-number painted at the ferry? Look at this old ferry from Stockholm to Turku from 1960s and 1970s. In that time it was E3, now it's E18. The ferrys at that route don't have any E-road signs anymore. Maybe they don't think they need it anymore?

But do you know other ferry rotes were the ferrys had the E-road sign?


----------



## Gareth (Apr 27, 2004)

ChrisZwolle said:


> The problem is the E-route scheme is a grid, while the European motorway network mostly is not. Only Germany has a significant grid, but most others have radial systems.


Indeed. It seems the UN (not the EU contrary to popular belief) thought that they'd just copy the US Interstate system, not taking into account either the difference in geography between the US, which is mostly a solid block, whereas Europe contains lots or islands & penninsulas, nor that the US Interstate system was more or less entire new build roads built almost entirely to freeway standards, whilst the 'E' system contains allsorts of different types of road.

Additionally, I'm not a fan of numbers which disappear into the sea and then reappear at the other side and some of them just don't make so much sense and aren't really that useful. Take the E20 which passes near where I live in Liverpool. It 'arrives' via the port from Ireland and then uses the M62, jumps into the north sea to Scandinavia, from where it has a little swim in the Baltic towards Estonia and then Russia. Now, how much traffic on the M62 leaving Liverpool seriously ends up following this route, even as far as Denmark & Sweden, let alone Estonia & Russia? It's an utterly pointless designation.

Obviously, some on the continent work better but the scheme really needs an overhaul, taking what works (such as the E15, E19 etc) and adding on that, taking into account the radial nature of many European road networks, whether we need so many of them and whether 'E' roads should be up to a certain standard. Most of all, such a system should be shaped on the reality of Europe's tranport corridors and what makes practical sense, rather than politics.


----------



## Barciur (Dec 6, 2009)

Gareth was straight to the point - even though he seems banned now! LOL.

Anyway, the thing is, interstates in the US basically were creating the new roads. E system naming certain route an "E" road - sometimes disregarding the existing national road system. I know that in Poland sometimes same E road changes national roads etc etc and it's never guaranteed to be a motorway (in fact, most of the time it's not a motorway) hence it seems somewhat pointless. 

Regular people in Poland, at least those who I know, have no idea what an E designation is. Typical citizen from Lublin will know that you take the 17 (DK17) to Warsaw, but they will not know that it's E372...

edit: I saw that Ä is not an A after I posted but figured I'll just keep it for fun :lol:


----------



## Gareth (Apr 27, 2004)

Barciur said:


> Gareth was straight to the point - even though he seems banned now! LOL.


Yeah. :|


----------



## -Pino- (Aug 12, 2007)

FM 2258 said:


> Do locals ever use the E number? I remember driving in Italy I hardly noticed the E number. Highways signs aren't as easy to follow in Europe as in the U.S. in my opinion.


Italians are notoriously bad at signposting road numbers. And when they do, it is (i) a very small sign and (ii) usually the number of a road that you will cross later on. Most other European countries make life a lot easier when it comes to following road numbers. It varies by country whether you will find the E-number only, the national number only or both on the directional signage. But you will always know which route number you have to follow, and that actually is done quite easily.

As a matter of fact, I would say that following route numbers in Europe is easier than in the US, as route numbers in Europe are normally integrated into the directional signage whereas route numbers in the US are often not integrated but posted on separate trailblazers.


----------



## -Pino- (Aug 12, 2007)

Gareth said:


> Take the E20 which passes near where I live in Liverpool. It 'arrives' via the port from Ireland and then uses the M62, jumps into the north sea to Scandinavia, from where it has a little swim in the Baltic towards Estonia and then Russia. Now, how much traffic on the M62 leaving Liverpool seriously ends up following this route, even as far as Denmark & Sweden, let alone Estonia & Russia? It's an utterly pointless designation.


How many traffic on the E30 on the continent seriously ends up following the entire route all the way to Omsk? Even within the US the number of drivers following the I-80 from coast to coast is very small. And still these routes bear one route number. The rationale behind long route numbers eventually goes beyond the actual use by drivers of the entire route number. In a grid system, numbers are the result of an east-west orientation or a north-south orientation at a particular place in the grid. If you have one east-west motorway in the UK and a further east-west motorway somewhere on the continent, then I don't mind that the two use one route number. Even if there is no ferry, as long as the two intertwine properly in the grid.

On the other hand, your point can be read as the question how much added value there is in designating an east-west route like the M62 as a European route. Probably as much as designating east-west routes in the deep South of Italy as such, in other words hardly any at all. But then you end up in the sense and nonsense of a E-system next to national numbers. Which I think is very much limited. I can imagine the either-or approach taken in Denmark, Sweden, Belgium and other countries. But I see little use in the Spanish system of always signposting local number AND E-number together. That's just a waste in my opinion.


----------



## Gareth (Apr 27, 2004)

-Pino- said:


> How many traffic on the E30 on the continent seriously ends up following the entire route all the way to Omsk?


True, but there will be traffic that goes some of the way, then traffic that gets on later and goes even further the way etc. It's a continuum and it probably benefits people even going just a fraction of the way, as they cross national borders. You cannot really say the same about the E20 and there really is no benefit whatsover of resigning the M62 as the E20. It looking good on a grid that doesn't fit well with the continent it's supposedly designed for is nowhere near a good enough reason.

I really don't think the UK, nor the Republic of Ireland need to be part of the scheme at all, to be frank. No more than Iceland anyway.


----------



## Rebasepoiss (Jan 6, 2007)

-Pino- said:


> But I see little use in the Spanish system of always signposting local number AND E-number together. That's just a waste in my opinion.


I agree. Estonia also signs both local AND E-numbers. And the ironic part is that the locals know neither of them...


----------



## -Pino- (Aug 12, 2007)

Gareth said:


> It looking good on a grid that doesn't fit well with the continent it's supposedly designed for is nowhere near a good enough reason. I really don't think the UK, nor the Republic of Ireland need to be part of the scheme at all, to be frank. No more than Iceland anyway.


You're right on the grid point. A route should look good on the grid AND have European importance. And that's probably the main issue with an E-number for the M62. It does not attract the slightest bit of European through-traffic for which the E-system was designed. That being said, there are routes in the UK that would fit well in the E-system. But it would be routes from the ferry ports on the Channel coast to the North, and possibly an east-west route from the ferry ports on the East Anglia coast via London and the M4 to Wales. In other words, the current E30 and something like the E05 and the E15 (which I would reroute a bit). 

In doing so, you only name routes with a certain European importance as E-routes. It should indeed not be relevant that the number of E-routes through the UK and Ireland is so much limited and/or that a route like the E20 does not have a continuation beyond Denmark. It's not a UK-only problem either. I believe that Italy, too, should be stripped of its even E-numbers for any routes south of Genova.


----------



## CNGL (Jun 10, 2010)

RolexAL said:


> Albania joined the E-road cooperation since 2006.
> 
> E762 Tirana-Podgorica
> 
> ...


They could reroute the E65 through Albania. It has a weird routing in Montenegro and Serbia.


----------



## Grisent (Jul 18, 2010)

From an Eastern European point-of-view, there's one more aspect. Having a road bear an E-number makes it easier to seek EU co-funding when said road needs reconstruction or improvements.  Applying for funding is arcane enough and needs mountains of paperwork; an E-number gives much-needed leverage.

I have a certain suspicion that this is, at least partly, the reason behind Estonian E263 and E264.

However -- there are definitely a lot of well-chosen E-routes which bear a lot of significance. Especially E67 --_ Via Baltica_ -- is a very powerful symbol for the Baltics and the region's primary route to Western Europe.

That "E3" Silja Line earlier in this thread is absolutely adorable... :cheers1: I would love to see that practice put into use again, however unnecessary that might be. Since we already have E20 signposted to Stockholm, E67 to Helsinki and E265 to Kapellskär (with kilometrages given on distance signs, no less!), everything should be prepared and we could slap the same numbers on ferries, too.


----------



## x-type (Aug 19, 2005)

CNGL said:


> They could reroute the E65 through Albania. It has a weird routing in Montenegro and Serbia.


E65 has many weird detours  for instamce, why does it go to Prague? or to Rijeka? (although, it follows A1 route through Croatia now).


----------



## Pablo Diablo (Nov 21, 2009)

E05, E15 and E30 should definitely be signposted in the UK because it is possible to drive them end-to-end (E05: ferry from Southampton to Le Havre. E15: tunnel from Folkstone to Calais. E30: ferry from Felixstowe to Hoek van Holland).

E20 is a maybe. It is possible to travel Shannon to Hull (via Dublin-Liverpool ferry) but there's no ferry between Hull and Esbjerg.


----------



## sotonsi (Feb 6, 2007)

The only place you can go by vehicle ferry from Southampton is the Isle of Wight. Felixstowe is also not an international ferry port, but a container port.

The E15 'ends' at Dover, but luckily there's a ferry from there to Calais.


----------



## -Pino- (Aug 12, 2007)

The ferries to Hoek van Holland depart from Harwich, for which purpose there is a short deviation from the E30 to the port of Harwich. E32 must therefore be one of the shortest E-numbers, particularly in the two-digit section. One could of course argue that the E30 should not run to Felixstowe but to Harwich. But is it really worth it for the 250 (or so) cars that go onto the Hoek - Harwich ferry per day? Presumably Felixstowe gets to see more international traffic and is a more logical British terminus for the E30.

Southampton is, in my view, a useless British terminus for any E-route. But when the E05 hits the M6, it becomes a route that deserves an E-number in my view. But I do think that you should use a different number than E05 in that case. 

For example:
E05 - terminates in Le Havre rather than continuing north.
E13 - becomes London (M25-M20 intersection, and intersection with the E15) - Birmingham - Glasgow (i.e. takes over the bulk of E05, just the deviation to Soton is replaced with a connector to the London orbital)
E15 - remains Dover - London, but then continues via the M1/A1(M)/A1 into Scotland
E30 - remains as is
All other E-numbers in Great Britain and Ireland to be discontinued. 

In most case, that is short a shortening of an existing E-route. The number E24 will become available for use elsewhere. Could be used to clean up the mess that is called E22 on the continent. And E32 also becomes available. A number that could come in quite handy for a large clean-up in the Netherlands so that E25, E30 and E35 can be moved around a bit there.


----------



## Coccodrillo (Sep 30, 2005)

E32 is only 30 km long and nowhere signposted as such: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_route_E32


----------



## ChrisZwolle (May 7, 2006)

E33 and E46 are also rather useless numbers.


----------



## Verso (Jun 5, 2006)

CNGL said:


> They could reroute the E65 through Albania. It has a weird routing in Montenegro and Serbia.


E-roads in Albania are still inofficial, because Albania still hasn't ratified the European Agreement on Main International Traffic Arteries treaty.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transport_in_Albania#International_Routes
http://www.unece.org/trans/conventn/ECE-TRANS-SC1-384e.pdf



Uppsala said:


> http://www.unece.org/trans/conventn/MapAGR2007.pdf


Now I know why E653 stops at the Hungarian-Slovenian border. Because they mistook Maribor (second Slovenian city) for the Hungarian border village of Tornyiszentmiklós. :nuts: (not to mention they misspelt it) They also think Letenye is in Croatia.


----------



## sotonsi (Feb 6, 2007)

-Pino- said:


> Southampton is, in my view, a useless British terminus for any E-route. But when the E05 hits the M6, it becomes a route that deserves an E-number in my view. But I do think that you should use a different number than E05 in that case.


Perhaps Portsmouth is better, with the ferries (including to Le Havre) than Southampton, but for international traffic, the south coast ports require more help from the E-road system than London - London is signed all the way from north of Birmingham, whereas Southampton and Portsmouth get a "The SOUTH" consistently from M40 junction 9. If you are happy with a Euroroute heading to Felixstowe, then Southampton is nearly as big a container port, and a much bigger settlement, with other big settlements nearby.

Also, because of the radial nature of UK road numbers, there's 3 numbers from Birmingham to Southampton (well the edges of to edges of). For London there's just one. It's, if you are to cosign national and E numbers, more worth it if the E numbers cover several national routes, rather than just duplicate them.

Given the E road grid is trying to replicate, somewhat, the interstate grid, then, like that system, then transcontinental, and even inter-state traffic isn't the sole aim of the system. How much national importance is that I-27 exists? It's a fairly important road in Texas that would be a long 3di if it weren't for the spare numbers around that area. Heh, there's even duplicates, so there's no reason, on interstate logic, that you can't have E07, E11, E42, etc in the UK (double bonus due to the disconnection). Likewise all sorts of 3-digits serving very regional routes, so that like before the 1983 changes, the country could be densely packed with them for no reason other than it looks good on the map.


----------



## -Pino- (Aug 12, 2007)

sotonsi said:


> Also, because of the radial nature of UK road numbers, there's 3 numbers from Birmingham to Southampton (well the edges of to edges of). For London there's just one. It's, if you are to cosign national and E numbers, more worth it if the E numbers cover several national routes, rather than just duplicate them.


I do not believe in co-signing two numbering systems. One of the two systems signposted is always a waste, and it adversely affects the legibility of the signs. So when I redesign part of the E-grid, I think in terms that the E-number should be capable of replacing the national road number altogether (not that I actually see this happen, but just for the fun of it). And those routes replaced should then also be the main traffic arteries of the country in question. When you replace national numbers with E-numbers, covering as many national numbers as possible can no longer be an objective in itself. 

While I fully see your point about the role of Southampton as an important container port, I gave London the nod as the terminus of the E13 because in doing so you follow a logical route rather than having one strange TOTSO somewhere close to Oxford. The E30 to Felixstowe is a different story, because that is only about a choice between two ports in East Anglia, rather than one between two different parts of the country (namely the London Orbital vs. the port of Southampton, or Portsmouth). But well, surely this all also boils down to personal taste.


----------



## bozata90 (Dec 8, 2008)

I think the most reasonable on the Balkans are E80 (in the part Istanbul - Sofia - Nish) and E`90 (via Egnatia - Istanbul).


----------



## SeanT (Sep 14, 2008)

Polonus said:


> Is it used in your country? Do people refer to E-numbers or in traffic information?
> 
> Oh yeah, it is used. Incorrectly. Our journalists and reporters fail very often to distinguish between national numbering and E-numbering. For example they say: “Two people have died in car accident on the road E7”. They don’t realize that National Road 7 (in Polish: Droga Krajowa 7) is a stretch of E77. The same about NR 2 (DK2) and E30: we have “brilliant” results in news as “national road E2”. :bash:


 We never mention the E numbering on motorways/mainroads never refer to it in any ways(but we have them on the signs) we always refer to the M-numbering and the direction or Km. in Hungary.
On the other hand it´s always mentiond in news with directions in Denmark.


----------



## ABC LV (Aug 27, 2008)

E roads often doesn't make any sense. Just look at E22


----------



## Uppsala (Feb 26, 2010)

ABC LV said:


> E roads often doesn't make any sense. Just look at E22


When E22 was new there was a ferry route from Immingham to Amsterdam, but i think it's closed now. But a ferry route from Norrköping to Ventspils has never existed.


----------



## ABC LV (Aug 27, 2008)

Uppsala said:


> But a ferry route from Norrköping to Ventspils has never existed.


Ferry line Ventspils - Nynäsham (basically a neighboring town to Norrköping) exists
http://www.scandlines.lt/en/time_veny


----------



## CNGL (Jun 10, 2010)

E-roads are signed in Azerbaijan as well. I've found a sign on the E60 near Alyat, near the intersection with E119, and both numbers are signed.


----------



## Uppsala (Feb 26, 2010)

CNGL said:


> E-roads are signed in Azerbaijan as well. I've found a sign on the E60 near Alyat, near the intersection with E119, and both numbers are signed.


What about Kazakhstan? Do they sign the E-roads? E127 in Maikapshagai is the most eastern part of the E-road network. And it's even more east than Katmandu. Maikapshagai is a place in Kazakhstan close to the Chinese border. Is that road signed in Maikapshagai? That should be interesting.


----------



## CNGL (Jun 10, 2010)

^^ I was following the E60 from Poti (Georgia) to the Kyrgyzstan/China border at Irkestam, so I don't touched Kazakhstan.
And a correction:



ChrisZwolle said:


> The great thing about a road numbering system is that it is possible for prefixes to indicate the road class. An E-road can be anything from a 5 meter wide rural road to a 16-lane motorway.


No, from a dirt road to a 16 lane motorway :lol:. The road of this photo is the E60 in Tajikistan.


----------



## treichard (Sep 5, 2009)

CNGL said:


> E-roads are signed in Azerbaijan as well. I've found a sign on the E60 near Alyat, near the intersection with E119, and both numbers are signed.


Got a link to a photo of it?


----------



## CNGL (Jun 10, 2010)

Of course: Untitled. With an Asian designation!


----------



## BND (May 31, 2007)

^^ that sign is BIG


----------



## goschio (Dec 2, 2002)

Nobody uses E numbers in Germany.


----------



## Palance (Mar 23, 2005)

BND said:


> ^^ that sign is BIG


But the road numbers are not.


----------



## Uppsala (Feb 26, 2010)

goschio said:


> Nobody uses E numbers in Germany.


Signs with E-numbers exists in Germany. But it's difficult to follow them if you don't know the national number of the road.


----------



## ChrisZwolle (May 7, 2006)

E-numbers are often only signed on distance signs in Germany, not on directional signage, although they added some E-numbers recently in some areas, but it's not yet widespread enough you can follow them without knowing the A-numbers.


----------



## Rebasepoiss (Jan 6, 2007)

^^ Which are the countries that always use E-numbers on directional signage? Sweden, Denmark, Belgium, Estonia...?


----------



## Verso (Jun 5, 2006)

^ Slovenia.


----------



## sotonsi (Feb 6, 2007)

France is a 'nearly' - most of them are well signed, but others (eg E29) are patchy. It seems to be the ones that they don't care about aren't signed very well. Those on Autoroutes and Voie Express (and upgrade corridors, like the RCEA) are well signed.


----------



## ea1969 (Oct 6, 2007)

An effort to put all things together:

E-roads as part of the national road numbering system: Denmark, Sweden, Norway.

E-roads replacing national numbers on motorways: Serbia, Belgium.

E-roads signed on most or all directional signs: Greece, Turkey, Bulgaria, Romania, FYR Macedonia, Montenegro, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia, Slovenia, Austria, Switzerland, Italy (sometimes only E-numbers are signed), France, Spain, Portugal, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Poland, Hungary, Finland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Belarus, Russia, Ukraine, 

E-roads signed in cases: Azerbaijan, Armenia, Georgia, Moldova, Ireland.

E-roads signed mainly on RCS signs: Germany (also signed on B-road signs).

E-roads unsigned: United Kingdom, Albania (not sure if the country has yet signed the UNECE agreement), Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan.

No E-roads: Cyprus, Malta, Andorra, Gibraltar, Liechtenstein, Iceland, San Marino, Monaco, Vatican State, Faroe Islands.

_Note: Kosovo (not yet recognized by all countries) also signs E-roads on all sings._


----------



## Rebasepoiss (Jan 6, 2007)

^^ Thanks!


----------



## Uppsala (Feb 26, 2010)

Some E-roads are very strange. Like the E008. How can this be an E-road?


----------



## ea1969 (Oct 6, 2007)

^^
Although this may require a lot of money in replacing thousands of signs, the system needs quite a lot of modifications in order to satisfy certain road conditions and also to follow logical and useful long-range and medium-range routes.


----------



## ChrisZwolle (May 7, 2006)

Where's that, Tajikistan?


----------



## ea1969 (Oct 6, 2007)

^^
Yes, it should be somewhere between Murgab and the Chinese border. It is indicated that after Murgab, E008 continues and ends up at the Chinese border in Kulma, however all maps I have consulted do not show any road going all the way to the Chinese border in the area.


----------



## treichard (Sep 5, 2009)

ea1969 said:


> E-roads unsigned: United Kingdom, Albania (not sure if the country has yet signed the UNECE agreement), Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan.


This raises a few questions (at least for me):

Do Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan treat E roads as the UK does ("we have chosen the routings but the E numbers won't be on visible on our signs") or as Albania does ("we haven't chosen routings yet, so there are no E numbers to put on signs")?

Is it that those 5 Asian countries have stated that they won't adopt or sign the E numbers, or is it merely an assumption that without finding any online pics of signed E roads in those countries, they're _probably_ not signed.

Got pics of any Armenian highway signs with E numbers on them? It was neat to see the Georgian and Azerbaijan styles.

And is it _still _true that Albania has not fully agreed to the AGR agreement? They're left out of the system in the 2008 UNECE E road log and no official requests to include them are available on the relevant part of the UNECE site, but some maps (Google Maps, Collins Europe Road Atlas 2011) show E851, E852, E86, E762, and E853 in Albania. It's not clear if the mapmakers have simply guessed on fictitious routings or if they know that they have been determined.


----------



## Triple C (Aug 23, 2010)

Google Maps is getting silly, it shows the whole Turkish D-400 road also labelled as E-90! (with its actual route.)


----------



## urbanlover (Feb 14, 2005)

I know not all E roads are freeway, but are the non freeways ones generally along routes that are planned to be upgraded? Are E-10's the exception to the rule? What's what's the point of putting an E-number on a road like that in middle of East Jesus in the first place?


----------



## Coccodrillo (Sep 30, 2005)

No, there is usually no plan to upgrade them. E-roads follow illogic paths (when possible involving motorways) that no one would follow, like the E25. No one would go from The Netherlands to Sicily via Corsica and Sardinia, using three ferries and running on non-motorway roads.


----------



## ChrisZwolle (May 7, 2006)

The E-numbering system is a poor attempt at creating a non-existent grid network.


----------



## g.spinoza (Jul 21, 2010)

Coccodrillo said:


> No, there is usually no plan to upgrade them. E-roads follow illogic paths (when possible involving motorways) that no one would follow, like the E25. No one would go from The Netherlands to Sicily via Corsica and Sardinia, using three ferries and running on non-motorway roads.


I don't think E numbers are meant to be assigned to routes to follow in their entirety. I think it's just an attempt to systematize a road grid that isn't there yet, as Chris said. In fact it seems they were created as shortest possible path as the crow flies.


----------



## AtD (Oct 22, 2002)

Coccodrillo said:


> No, there is usually no plan to upgrade them. E-roads follow illogic paths (when possible involving motorways) that no one would follow, like the E25. No one would go from The Netherlands to Sicily via Corsica and Sardinia, using three ferries and running on non-motorway roads.


That is brilliant. You sir have made my day. :lol:


----------



## -Pino- (Aug 12, 2007)

I can name a few other grid-based numbering systems that are not really laid out in a grid. US Interstates also run askew every now and then. To me, the issue highlighted by Coccodrillo is the larger one. On top of that, large parts of the Western European road network come closer to a grid than you think. The German network is very grid-based, large parts of the Dutch and French networks can also be seen as a grid.

Problem is, however, that the E-network does not follow that grid. There is no E15 that runs down from Calais to Barcelona via Clermont-Ferrand, there is no E25 that runs down from Amsterdam to Marseille. And who ever brought up to idea to connect Amsterdam and Rome via one E-route, despite being 5 degrees apart? 

As long as E-routes follow existing axes for their larger part, I think that one would be forgiven for the odd TOTSO and for not always forming a perfect grid. But the current E-routes are neither a problem grid nor aligned to main arteries. Even leaving aside those ferries into Sicily, the E25 follows a route that nobody will ever take between The Netherlands and Genova. The E45 between Bologna and Roma is bloody ridiculous ! All added value of route numbering is gone if you can neither attach your road numbers to a certain route nor to cardinal directions.

I think that I can do a lot better than what UNECE did in 1975 (as much as I have an advantage, namely the fact that the Western European grid has developed strongly since 1975). I am in the process of developing a form of E-numbering that is grid-based and respects the major European arteries and input is always welcome. 

My work in progress (areas north of The Netherlands and East of Poland are still under consideration) can be found at public maps in Google:
E1-25 odd
E27-55 odd
E30-E58 even
E60-98 even


----------



## Ingenioren (Jan 18, 2008)

The "E23" in Norway is all over the place... and winter-closed....?


----------



## Uppsala (Feb 26, 2010)

^^
There are more winter closed E-roads. E008 is one of them.


----------



## ChrisZwolle (May 7, 2006)

^^ M41 Tajikistan  That may also be the highest E-road, it exceeds 4100 meters.


----------



## -Pino- (Aug 12, 2007)

Ingenioren said:


> The "E23" in Norway is all over the place... and winter-closed....?


My E23 is supposed to track the current E39. More a change in numbering than the introduction of a new road into the system. But speaking of it, would it be worth considering removing that E23 / E39 for a lack of international interest?

EDIT: E23 is Norway now longer exists (for lack of international interest). E23 is now Brussels - Luxembourg, which in my previous plan formed one route together with Luxembourg - Neunkirchen. Separating the two saves a rather large duplex.


----------



## CNGL (Jun 10, 2010)

I like the idea for extend the E07 all the way down to Valencia (It has been mistakenly signed down to kmpost 251 of A-23). Can you also extend it up to Bourdeaux? They have signed the E07 along the A65.

BTW you have 2 E11s paralleling! (One of them is more or less current E07) I would make the eastern one an extension of your proposed E13, so I will have the European route of the bad luck running near home .


----------



## Uppsala (Feb 26, 2010)

^^
Are there really serious plans to extend the E7 down to Valencia and up to Bourdeaux? Or is it just a few who have ideas about this? I think the E7 is a quite short E-road for the moment. Only 250 km.


----------



## CNGL (Jun 10, 2010)

No, they aren't serious plans, only runs from Zaragoza to Pau. However, they have mistakenly signed it up to Langon and down to the kmpost 251 of the A-23 (some 30 km South of Zaragoza).


----------



## -Pino- (Aug 12, 2007)

The A65 between Pau and Langon is already signposted as E7 (not E07). Once you reach Langon, you are already quite close to Bordeaux. However, I have not found any official record of an extension of the E07 to either Bordeaux or Valencia.

I'm not sure whether I would be in favour of such an extension. On the one hand, Pau and Huesca are strange towns to connect with an E-route. Termini at Bordeaux and Valencia appear to be more logical. But on the other hand, motorists driving between these two cities would in principle take the route via Bayonne and Pamplona. The route via the E07 is 30 kilometers shorter, but is partially at non-motorway standard and will remain so for quite some time to come. Even if completed, I doubt whether it will be a quicker route in light of its mountain sections. Extending the current E09 (E13 in my numbering) to Valencia faces more or less the same problem. Nobody would ever drive from Paris to Valencia via Toulouse and the Somport. 

It is for that reason that I have solved my duplication of E11 by simply taking out Pau - Huesca - Valencia from the E-route network. Sorry about your bad luck route, CNGL :cheers:


----------



## CNGL (Jun 10, 2010)

I want a Euroroute through Huesca!!! :bleep:


----------



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

CNGL said:


> No, they aren't serious plans, only runs from Zaragoza to Pau. However, they have mistakenly signed it up to Langon and down to the kmpost 251 of the A-23 (some 30 km South of Zaragoza).





-Pino- said:


> The A65 between Pau and Langon is already signposted as E7 (not E07). Once you reach Langon, you are already quite close to Bordeaux. However, I have not found any official record of an extension of the E07 to either Bordeaux or Valencia.
> 
> I'm not sure whether I would be in favour of such an extension. On the one hand, Pau and Huesca are strange towns to connect with an E-route. Termini at Bordeaux and Valencia appear to be more logical. But on the other hand, motorists driving between these two cities would in principle take the route via Bayonne and Pamplona. The route via the E07 is 30 kilometers shorter, but is partially at non-motorway standard and will remain so for quite some time to come. Even if completed, I doubt whether it will be a quicker route in light of its mountain sections. Extending the current E09 (E13 in my numbering) to Valencia faces more or less the same problem. Nobody would ever drive from Paris to Valencia via Toulouse and the Somport.
> 
> It is for that reason that I have solved my duplication of E11 by simply taking out Pau - Huesca - Valencia from the E-route network. Sorry about your bad luck route, CNGL :cheers:


I'm provoked by CNGL's use of the word "mistakenly" for the posting of the E7 along the A65, and by Pino's use of the term "official record" to ask a question I've been wondering about for some time:

If - like me - you're trying to figure out from a distance the geography of Europe's road system (and it's France and Belgium that interest me the most), you'll perhaps be struck by the discrepancies in the routing of the European routes. Some examples: (1) most maps from publishers other than the IGN route the E5, E15 and E50, in the Paris area, all the way to the Périphérique, although not actually along it - they'll reach it and pick up on the other side of the city; Google Maps, perhaps assuming they shouldn't be interrupted, routes them around the Périphérique; but IGN maps mostly keep them away from the city and use the Francilienne. (2) Some IGN maps route the E21, between Dijon and the A40, over the A39; others use the A31, A6 and A40. (3) Photos I've seen of the signage mark the E15 around Lyon using the A46, but most if not all maps run it through the city using the A6 and A7. And I could bore you with more if I had time.

My question is, *is* there an official answer to this sort of question? All I've ever come up with is general routings "E19: Paris, Brussels, Amsterdam" and I sort of assumed that some treaty laid out the system like that in general and left precise routings up to the individual countries. That's it, I gues....


----------



## -Pino- (Aug 12, 2007)

There is indeed a treaty, namely the European Agreement on Main International Traffic Arteries (AGR) of 15 November 1975. People discussing E-routes will mostly refer to it as the Geneva Convention. You can find it via http://live.unece.org/trans/conventn/legalinst.html#2

The paths of the various E-routes are laid down in an Annex to the Convention. The Convention provides for mechanism to change the Annex without needing to go through a full ratification process. This has allowed the Convention to more or less track developments in the road networks of the various countries involved. As you already suspected, however, the annex is not very precise about the exact path of routes. The French path of the E15, for one, is described as Calais - Paris - Lyon - Orange - Narbonne - Gerona. That description leaves open how the E15 is routed around Paris and Lyon, and you could even choose to route Calais - Paris via the A16 and via the A26-A1 (the latter is signposted). On that point, the only thing that mapmakers can do is to rely on the signs on the ground. Which in many cases is inconsistent, possibly also because signmakers don't really bother. And of course, you have to wonder whether mapmakers bother either. It often takes ages before a change in a route number or an exit number makes it onto maps.

So against that background, the situation at Paris is as unclear as you describe it. E-route shields are intermittant at best, even at major intersections. In other words, it's a mapmaker's guess. Around Lyon, I suspect that the intention is to route E15 via the A46. Without any doubt, however, there are still many E15 signs on the A6-A7 route, because they pre-date the A46 or were placed after opening without the sign maker checking whether it was appropriate at all to use the same numbers as on the old sign.

The E07 North of Pau suggests to me that road owners do bother. I think that the owner of the newly built A65 saw signposting the road as E07 as a good bit of promotion of the road as an international artery. And luck had it that it could "borrow" an E-number that terminated nearby. They will likely not care whether or not the French government and UNECE follow the lead one day. The E21 is the opposite scenario. If APRR had bothered about E-numbers, they would certaintly have worked out at opening of the A39 that it was preferable to route the E21 over that new route. But apparently they did not, so the signs still show a E21 via Macon.


----------



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

^^Thanks for that 

What remains unclear to me is whether anyone at the national level (in France, but other people may be interested in other countries) has made this sort of decision - by which I mean official determinations of exact routings. I know that, for Belgium, the Walloon Region has on its website a map of the E-routes which is clear enough on this sort of thing. But I've never seen anything like that for the rest of Belgium or for France. (And I guess we can't take the IGN's maps as official just because it's a government agency...?) By the way, as far as Belgium is concerned, the most unclear thing would be whether the E40 goes around the Ring or into Brussels; going around the Ring would make sense to me but maybe that's because I'm an American; plenty of maps show it running to the end of the A10, disappearing, then reappearing at the beginning of the A3....

Thanks again.


----------



## -Pino- (Aug 12, 2007)

I think that this type of decision is taken at the national level, obviously with cross-border cooperation in border regions. Exact routing and signposting is not really UNECE's core-competence anyway. As far as I understand, they take a rather passive role when it comes to proposals for rerouting (e.g. extending E07 into Bordeaux and Valencia). As long as the countries involved agree, I understand that they will only check for consistency with the principles of the Convention. For reroutings affecting one country only (e.g. the E6 in Norway, where I understand that a rerouting via Rv3 is under consideration) it should thus mainly be a one-country decision coupled with some administrative hassle. 

As far as Belgium is concerned, again the Convention does not clarify. The Antwerp and Brussels ring roads are only signposted as R0, R1 and R2 and the E-numbers only appear as routes that you will come across later on. But on the other hand, the signs do not show the continuation of any E-road into town either. Except for E411, which terminates in Brussels. It's a strange form of signposting a route, but well. In Liège, E40 and E42 are continued on the ring road, but E25 is not. On other ring roads, I am not aware of any disruption.


----------



## MattiG (Feb 11, 2011)

g.spinoza said:


> So the Italian way is agreeing to the change and then leaving all as it was before, while the Swedish way is disagreeing to the change and then leaving all as it was before. :lol:


This is not the whole truth. 

In the old system, there were eight E roads in Sweden: E3, E4, E6, E14, E18, E66, E75, and E79. The E4, E6, and E18 were retained, but the remaining ones were renumbered and/or rerouted.

The basic reason for Norway and Sweden to resist the renewed system was the E roads having no national number. As the E4 crosses the whole Sweden, and E6 does the same in Norway, the change would have implied a major change to the the national numbering system, too. Of course, the countries wanted to keep their 'good' small numbers, too.


----------



## NordikNerd (Feb 5, 2011)

> =-Pino-;79315154, Besides, the E4 in Sweden is a bit of an odd story. It was originally supposed to be part of E55, but the Swedes liked the old number and eventually got things their way, i.e. they could retain E4 and E55 now stops pretty much on the Swedish border.


The E55 stops in the water (on the 25 min ferry)between Helsingör-Helsingborg.

Sweden is like the UK a "off-continental" country and less affected by the traffic from other continental countries, so I don't see the keeping of E4 in favor of the E55 as a major setback. The UK does probably not like E-marked roads because of their left-hand traffic ??

Actually I think the whole E-road numbering is a bit overestimated. In Sweden only the E4 south of Stockhom, E6 and E20 are of main importance for international traffic.

Such roads as the E10, E12, E22, E65 and E45 through sweden are of less use internationally, at least the E45 should take back it's old national road 45 name again. It does not meet the E-road standard.

The fractional norwegian E39 is a joke especially as a E-road. You have to do 9 short ferry-tours to complete it.


The E75 from Norway-Finland to Greece should at least be rerouted through the Baltics.



MattiG said:


> This is not the whole truth.
> 
> In the old system, there were eight E roads in Sweden: E3, E4, E6, E14, E18, E66, E75, and E79. The E4, E6, and E18 were retained, but the remaining ones were renumbered and/or rerouted.
> 
> The basic reason for Norway and Sweden to resist the renewed system was the E roads having no national number. As the E4 crosses the whole Sweden, and E6 does the same in Norway, the change would have implied a major change to the the national numbering system, too. Of course, the countries wanted to keep their 'good' small numbers, too.


also because of high costs for renumbering of the long E4 road


----------



## Ingenioren (Jan 18, 2008)

MattiG said:


> In the old system, there were eight E roads in Sweden: E3, E4, E6, E14, E18, E66, E75, and E79. The E4, E6, and E18 were retained, but the remaining ones were renumbered and/or rerouted.


E14? Stjørdal - Sundsvall.

4 Euroroads combined (Liège):


Wimpie said:


>


Another strange thing: E45 ends at the Finish border in the middle of Muonio river. The 800m connecting road to E8 in Kaaresuvanto is Regionalväg 959. The short road is only signed "Finland" at the Swedish side and "Sverige" on the Finish side...


----------



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

That sign in Belgium actually isn't a four-way multiplex (a "quadriplex"?), just four numbers on one sign. Belgium (as far as I can tell from the other side of the Atlantic) has a habit of associating E-numbers with their destinations. That sign is indeed on the E25, E40 and E42, but not the E313. That "Anvers E313" means "Antwerp (Anvers is the French version) via the E313" - the E313 actually crosses the E25/40/42:

http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=50.676772,5.57436&spn=0.046776,0.109692&z=13

(The E25's missing from this map, at least at the zoom level I'm looking at - Google has it running through Liège, off of the freeways, along old roads along the river. But the Walloon region is one entity that seems to have official answers: http://carto-inter.met.wallonie.be/...ActiveLayer=13&title=Le réseau trans-européen Zoom in on Liège.)


----------



## NordikNerd (Feb 5, 2011)

Ingenioren said:


> E14? Stjørdal - Sundsvall.
> 
> 4 Euroroads combined (Liège):
> 
> ...


I see, the bridge over the Tornio river is probably not wide enough for E-road standard, so the E45 has to end in Karesuando and not in Karesuvanto.


But they are planning to extend E45 to Alta, Finnmark-Norway. Is there any traffic worth mentioning to Alta? Is the harbour there receiving incomming goods that have to be transported further south ?

Is there anyone who ever have travelled from Sicily to Karesuando on the E45or even to Fredrikshavn?

Do they even have a sign in Sicily of a road called E45? or do they only use A-letters.

I think it's more natural to end the E45 in Fredrikshavn, at some sections in sweden the E45 is still marked as road 45 only.

They should really stop this renumbering of roads because it's of no use and it is the motorists that have to pay for it.


----------



## MattiG (Feb 11, 2011)

Ingenioren said:


> E14? Stjørdal - Sundsvall.


No. Malmö-Ystad.


----------



## -Pino- (Aug 12, 2007)

NordicNerd said:


> In Sweden only the E4 south of Stockhom, E6 and E20 are of main importance for international traffic.


I'd agree on the E4. Continuing the number E4 up North doesn't hurt anybody though. E20 follows a bit of a strange route between Oslo and Göteborg, and I would add Oslo - Stockholm as a route of international importance. The even numbers further to the North are a bit of a strange story. As small as the number of users is, you would expect something of an East-West connector every now and then, even if it runs through sparsely populated country. However, ten East-West routes before you even make it to Stockholm is a bit over the top to me.



> Do they even have a sign in Sicily of a road called E45?


E-numbers are signposted quite consistently on Italian motorways (albeit in a fashion that is difficult to read) and the E45 on Sicily is not an exception. See for instance here.



> They should really stop this renumbering of roads because it's of no use and it is the motorists that have to pay for it.


Costs are very much overseeable, but I agree on the principle. Roads like the E45 and the E18 are being extended mainly to please regions that want to be more visible or think that they can attract more tourists by being on an E-route. If only they embarked on re-numberings to remove the various existing stupidities from the system ...


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E (Oct 26, 2007)

Ingenioren said:


> Rerouting E6 to Rv3? First i hear of it, certainly a good idea tough! I believe i've read signs for E16 extension will appear first during the summer.





-Pino- said:


> Suggests that Wikipedia is wrong then. Or Google Translate, which gave me a hand in trying to understand the Norwegian text.


Not, it is not wrong. A renumbering has been suggested many times på a number of people. It has also been proposed at the annual meeting of one of our national political parties recently. However, this does not mean that it is likely to happen soon. Road politics in Norway is all about (local) politics and tactics and little about common sense and strategy.


-Pino- said:


> As much as I look at this from a distance, the most direct Oslo - Trondheim route runs via Rv3 and not via the E6. So from that perspective, rerouting appears sensible. Other than the cost burden of doing so, is there anything that should stand in the way of E6 being rerouted via Rv3?





Ingenioren said:


> E6 isn't supposed to be the shortest route for all travels. Imagine the shortest route to Kirkenes from Oslo, Trondheim or even Alta... But to be the backbone of road transportation withinn Norway so it connects with important crosscountry routes and interior towns. I think there should be a sign pointing to Trondheim/Oslo and number of kilometers when Rv3 meets E6 tough. Why the northern ferry at Tysfjord is being used instead of the Rv827 is more puzzling...





Kjello0 said:


> The purpose of the main European Routes is supposed to be a network between the most important links in Europe and it's countries. Going north from Oslo the only important link in a European perspective is Trondheim. Even in a national perspective I feel the only really important link is Trondheim.
> 
> E 136 should have been extended to Hamar or perhaps even Oslo using Rv 4.
> 
> The stretch Ulsberg - Dombås pretty much only has regional traffic. And should be renamed Riksvei XX.





Maxx☢Power;77138223 said:


> The backbone argument doesn't really hold. There's nothing remotely important anywhere near the E6 between where Rv3 leaves and joins it. Ålesund, Molde and Kristiansund are already quite the detour, the E6 doesn't serve these towns.


How could I miss this incredibly important debate? After all, I have been there before.....

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=24022770&postcount=333

Seriously, I really don't understand why they at least cannot put up a sign. Today you must really pay attention to spot the one and only "Veier til Trondheim" information board at a rest area when coming from the south. From the northern side, there is nothing like that at all. And, I get really irritated each time the Gudbrandsdal people claim that they need a better road (which I agree to) because the E6 is the main road between Oslo and Trondheim. The latter claim is in fact quite far from the truth.


Ingenioren said:


> E14? Stjørdal - Sundsvall.
> ...





MattiG said:


> No. Malmö-Ystad.


The current E14 used to be called E75, at least between (Trondheim) Stjørdal and Sundsvall.


NordikNerd said:


> TThe fractional norwegian E39 is a joke especially as a E-road. You have to do 9 short ferry-tours to complete it.


Careful now, there is currently 8, and will soon be "only" 7, and vegvesenet has just started a study....









Regarding the international E-roads to UK etc, I guess they were more relevant before, when there were more international ferry lines running. The last one between Norway and UK stopped operating just a few years ago.


----------



## Triple C (Aug 23, 2010)

Anyone noticed Google Maps' E-90 bug on Turkey?


----------



## Harry (Nov 8, 2002)

NordikNerd said:


> The E55 stops in the water (on the 25 min ferry)between Helsingör-Helsingborg.
> 
> Sweden is like the UK a "off-continental" country and less affected by the traffic from other continental countries, so I don't see the keeping of E4 in favor of the E55 as a major setback. *The UK does probably not like E-marked roads because of their left-hand traffic ??*


The UK does not like or use E-numbering because it's unnecessary, pointless and irrelevant.


----------



## MattiG (Feb 11, 2011)

54°26′S 3°24′E;79350050 said:


> The current E14 used to be called E75, at least between (Trondheim) Stjørdal and Sundsvall.


Yes. And the current E65 Malmö-Ystad was E14.



54°26′S 3°24′E;79350050 said:


> Regarding the international E-roads to UK etc, I guess they were more relevant before, when there were more international ferry lines running. The last one between Norway and UK stopped operating just a few years ago.


The key desing idea was not to create contiguous routes but a grid similar to the interstate roads in the US. Because of the geograhical characteristics of Europe, the result is not absolutely successful.

On the E01, there is gap of 950 kilometers from Ireland to nortwestern Spain. No ferry has run this leg. The same applies to the E16: I wonder if there ever has been a ferry route from Edingburgh to Bergen.

There was a gap of 800 km on the E75 since early 1990's after the ferry route Helsinki-Gdansk was closed. The gap was closed in 2009, when Finnlines begun to operate a ferry line Helsinki-Gdynia.


----------



## NordikNerd (Feb 5, 2011)

MattiG said:


> ,
> The key desing idea was not to create contiguous routes but a grid similar to the interstate roads in the US. Because of the geograhical characteristics of Europe, the result is not absolutely successful..


Strange. In continental countries like Germany, France and Benelux where land is formed more like a block and not like peninsulas and islands E-roads are of less importance as they tend to use the A-letters insted. But in isolated Scandinavia cut of by bays and fjords we have big clearly marked E-signed roads often leading to sparsely populated nowhere-land.



MattiG said:


> ,
> On the E01, there is gap of 950 kilometers from Ireland to nortwestern Spain. No ferry has run this leg. The same applies to the E16: I wonder if there ever has been a ferry route from Edingburgh to Bergen..


those E-roads should be terminated, but if there is a ferry the E-road makes at least some sense. 

There used to be lots of ferries to Brittain but they couldn't compete with budget airlines so they went bankrupt. An example is Göteborg-Newcastle.



MattiG said:


> There was a gap of 800 km on the E75 since early 1990's after the ferry route Helsinki-Gdansk was closed. The gap was closed in 2009, when Finnlines begun to operate a ferry line Helsinki-Gdynia.


the E75 should use the Helsinki-Tallinn ferry and then continue through the Baltics, that is the quickest route to the continent. 

So what is the difference between the ports Gdansk and Gdynia? Is Gdynia a better alternative for carferries ?


----------



## -Pino- (Aug 12, 2007)

NordikNerd said:


> Strange. In continental countries like Germany, France and Benelux where land is formed more like a block and not like peninsulas and islands E-roads are of less importance as they tend to use the A-letters insted. But in isolated Scandinavia cut of by bays and fjords we have big clearly marked E-signed roads often leading to sparsely populated nowhere-land.


In Scandinavia, the E-routes are the most important routes in the network, which logically translates into E-status. They may run through nowhere-land, they may not be at motorway status for lengthy parts, they may even involve ferries, but they are by far the most important route in the areas through which they run. 

In countries like Germany, France and the Netherlands, on the other hand, you see many roads at an equal motorway standard that also have an equal level of importance. Naming some of them Exx and some of them Axx is difficult to sell, as you want route numbers to track the expectations of the motorist as much as possible. So the E-number then takes second spot (or completely disappears) and a national number takes precedence. In that domestic number area called Western Europe, of course Belgium stands out. You can indeed choose against national motorway numbers and in favour of E-numbers, but then you have to do so in the Belgian way. So then you have to refrain from calling your motorways A4, A8 and A13 yet instead use "difficult" numbers like E411, E429 and E313. To me, it is hardly surprising that the vast majority of Western European countries opted against Belgium ...


----------



## NordikNerd (Feb 5, 2011)

-Pino- said:


> In Scandinavia, the E-routes are the most important routes in the network, which logically translates into E-status. They may run through nowhere-land, they may not be at motorway status for lengthy parts, they may even involve ferries, but they are by far the most important route in the areas through which they run.


You are right, there are only 4 motorways in Sweden which are not E-roads

They are:

national roads 40,73
local roads 222, 158

Those are mainly local suburban motorways around Stockholm & Göteborg.


----------



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

-Pino- said:


> ....To me, it is hardly surprising that the vast majority of Western European countries opted against Belgium ...


Poor Belgium!

(I'm joking. I like the country; your wording just struck me. 

But back on topic, I do find it...well, it's none of my business, but the Belgian A-numbering system does have an internal logic to it, so it just seems strange that they ignore most of it. Posting both sets of numbers is what most of their neighbors do and it would at least have the advantage of matching what the motorist will see on their maps. (The person who's made the mistake of committing to memory that he should use the A3 and A2 to get from Brussels to Diest might miss his turn at Heverlee....))


----------



## ea1969 (Oct 6, 2007)

Just some 'strange allocations' of E-roads in Greece:

E65 follows a totally illogical route. Anybody that might go from Niki (MK border) up to Kalamata would never go via NR3, A27, NR3, NR27, NR48, A8 and A7. He would rather follow the NR3, A27, NR3, A1, NR3 or A6, A8, A7 route. The allocation Lamia - Antirrio - Korinthos - Kalamata is useless. And things will get worse when the A3 opens. Then the Niki - Lamia part will have been diverted via NR3, A27, A2, A3 for yet another detour.

E75 leaves A1 at Agios Athanasios, follows NR2 to Thessaloniki and comes back to the A1 (A1/A2 multiplex actually). Of course anybody wishing to go from Evzonoi to Athens would go straight ahead on the A1. The NR2 link to Thessaloniki could be an extension of the E86.

Also I cannot understand why E92 starts at Igoumenitsa and follows exactly the same route with E90 (via the A2) for too long without any purpose; it could have started near Metsovo where NR6 leads towards Trikala (eventually it could go on the A2/A3 interchange).

And finally I cannot understand why E951 goes all the way up to Agrinio or even Mesologgi (I am not sure); it follows the same route with E55 south of Amfilohia. E951 could be running just form Ioannina up to Amfilohia (NR42) and eventually up to the proposed A5/A52 interchange where it will be the next meeting point with the E55.


----------



## BWG95 (Jul 20, 2010)

NordikNerd said:


> You are right, there are only 4 motorways in Sweden which are not E-roads
> 
> They are:
> 
> ...


You forgot National road 80 and local road 265 (Norrortsleden)...


----------



## -Pino- (Aug 12, 2007)

NordikNerd said:


> You are right, there are only 4 motorways in Sweden which are not E-roads. (...) Those are mainly local suburban motorways around Stockholm & Göteborg.


And that in itself is a (more or less) valid reason to place them into a different class of roads. The distinction then is not between motorways and non-motorways, as you see in the Western European countries, but between regional interest and national/European interest. I guess that this puts Sweden close to the US, where there are of course lots of motorways outside the Interstate system, but those, too, mostly have a regional / suburban role only.



Penn's Woods said:


> it's none of my business, but the Belgian A-numbering system does have an internal logic to it, so it just seems strange that they ignore most of it. Posting both sets of numbers is what most of their neighbors do and it would at least have the advantage of matching what the motorist will see on their maps. (The person who's made the mistake of committing to memory that he should use the A3 and A2 to get from Brussels to Diest might miss his turn at Heverlee.


I think that it is fair to say that the Belgians do want their E-numbers to take precedence over their national ones. It's not my own preference, but it's none of my business either. But when it comes to planning your trip and then finding your way through the country, the motorist has to know that he can only rely on E-numbers, since you won't come across national numbers where it matters. As such, there may be a case in completely abandoning the A-numbers on roads that also have an E-number, as they do in the Scandinavian countries. And then let's hope that the mapmakers pick up the change (in fact, I believe that mapmakers would, even in the present situation, serve their customers well by completely removing Belgian A-numbers from their maps where the same road also bears an E-number).

But this issue is not unique to Belgium. The neighbouring countries do a bit of a poor job when it comes to signposting both sets of numbers, so there you face a mirrored version of the Belgian problem. Navigating through Germany, the Netherlands and France on the basis of E-numbers must be a bad experience. One is more or less forced into national numbers. That is not a bad thing, unless you had anticipated to navigate on the basis of E-numbers on the basis of the maps that you looked at.

Eventually, I am a strong believer in taking one system only. I think that signposting two systems does not benefit. As I mentioned, if Belgium wants to retain their E313s, E411s and E429s, fine but then remove the underlying A-numbers completely. And for all those other Western European countries that prefer their own A-numbers, I think that it would be better for them to completely remove the E-numbers from their signs as opposed to creating a false impression that you can navigate on E-numbers (that would create an issue under the AGR though).


----------



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

^^AGR?


----------



## aswnl (Jun 6, 2004)

AGR is the international agreement on European roads, signed in Geneva in 1975.
Under the AGR countries which have signed are obliged to signpost those E-numbers.


----------



## ElviS77 (Aug 3, 2007)

BWG95 said:


> You forgot National road 80 and local road 265 (Norrortsleden)...


There are even more, road 44, 53, even some unnumbered roads in the Stockholm and Malmö areas and probably a few I have forgotten. But the longer continuous motorway sections are found on the E network.


----------



## NordikNerd (Feb 5, 2011)

-Pino- said:


> but it's none of my business either. But when it comes to planning your trip and then finding your way through the country, the motorist has to know that he can only rely on E-numbers


since the E20 in sweden and the E65 in Greece (as someone mentioned) do not follow the shortest distance you can't fully rely on them. 




-Pino- said:


> Navigating through Germany, the Netherlands and France on the basis of E-numbers must be a bad experience. One is more or less forced into national numbers. That is not a bad thing, unless you had anticipated to navigate on the basis of E-numbers on the basis of the maps that you looked at.


E-numbers make sense only for international long haul truckers navigating their way on the continent, few motorists regularly travel long distance through several countries. Since the introducing of the GPS the E-roads feel even less important. They are feelgood-roads, make you feel that you can drive to that exotic destination without having to think about the map, but still in reality you only use a fraction of them, driving to work or other nearby locations.






BWG95 said:


> You forgot National road 80 and local road 265 (Norrortsleden)...


there also is the local roads of Stockholm 228 & 229 but they are only a few km.

also a very short section in Linköping of national road 34

that's about it.

Do any of these A-roads in Benelux, Italy, Germany run between several countries, if so do they change numbers ?


----------



## -Pino- (Aug 12, 2007)

That feelgood factor that you mention definitely played a role when E-routes were first created. But these days, I do not think that anybody bothers anymore. At least I don't ever think of Rome when driving to Utrecht. Or of Genova (dare I say Sicily via the strangest of routes?) when I continue my drive down the Dutch A2...


----------



## NordikNerd (Feb 5, 2011)

-Pino- said:


> , when I continue my drive down the Dutch A2...


You mean the dutch A2 also is the E25/E35

are these E25/E35 marked as often as the A2 on the signs? What is the most distant destination seen on these roads in NL?


----------



## -Pino- (Aug 12, 2007)

The Dutch A2 starts as E35 and then changes into E25. Furthest focal point on the signs for most of its length is Maastricht. First Belgian town appears at the Kerensheide interchange (A2/A76). That town is Liège, by the way.

On the E35, the town of Oberhausen first appears on the Eastern outskirts of Utrecht. No other towns in Germany are to be found on the signs.

On any Dutch E-route, the E-number is supposed to appear on the signs. Coverage used to be poor, yet is improving. At simple exits in the new style of signposting, however, E-numbers only appear on distance signs, where they used to be visible before the exit in the old system. But that is only at simple exits, where nobody would ever expect the E-route to turn off.


----------



## Glodenox (Mar 26, 2007)

It is indeed a problem that maps of Belgium still include the national number very prominently while they're hardly signed on our roads. The signs are correct in terms of how Belgians themselves see their motorway network, but people using maps may not be prepared to use E-numbers instead of A-numbers.

I just did a test with Google Maps and their instructions don't mention the A1 when it's talking about the directions for the E19. So with those instructions, there shouldn't be any problems.

I personally think that both numbers should be clearly visible, with the most commonly used as first (in the case of Belgium: the E-number, in the countries where the A-numbers well-known, the A-number).

Greetings,
Glodenox


----------



## Grisent (Jul 18, 2010)

NordikNerd said:


> the E75 should use the Helsinki-Tallinn ferry and then continue through the Baltics, that is the quickest route to the continent.


That is definitely a good option. True, the route through Baltics actually has an E-number already, it's the E67 (Helsinki - Prague). 

Having E67 and E75 multiplexed for a total of 1200 kilometers would not be the most optimal solution. But theoretically these two routes could just swap their numbers: Via Baltica becoming part of E75 and Gdynia - Prague becoming the new E67 route.

By the rules of the grid, E67 should anyway be located west of E75, so the swap would take care of that as well.


----------



## Ingenioren (Jan 18, 2008)

NordikNerd said:


> there also is the local roads of Stockholm 228 & 229 but they are only a few km.
> 
> also a very short section in Linköping of national road 34
> 
> that's about it.


Still forgot some:http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lista_över_motorvägar_i_Sverige

I like to have only one number like we in the Nordics do. And even Finland who has chosen to add national numbers on top are using the same number even on motorways. If we were to have national numbers - it would make more sense to make continous routes instead, since the roads that make up our highways change standard a lot - one solution could be to add an M to number where it is motorway like in UK. (Denmark is the only of the countries that have motorway network worthy of making separate M-numbers.)


----------



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

-Pino- said:


> ....At simple exits in the new style of signposting, however, E-numbers only appear on distance signs, where they used to be visible before the exit in the old system. But that is only at simple exits, where nobody would ever expect the E-route to turn off.


I'm having trouble visualizing what you mean by this.


----------



## -Pino- (Aug 12, 2007)

Below a picture of a pull-through sign in the old style, followed by a fork sign in the new style. You will see that there is no E-shield signposted on the second sign, notwithstanding the fact that you are on E30. That is now policy for simple exits (i.e. not motorway interchanges). 

The reason is that, when passing by a village like Goor, nobody will ever think "hey, my E30 could turn off here". So a confirmation after the exit that you are still on E30 is considered to be enough. In the old system, as the first picture shows, the E-route would still be shown prior to the exit.


----------



## Triple C (Aug 23, 2010)

Triple C said:


> Anyone noticed Google Maps' *E-90 bug on Turkey?*


:rant:


----------



## CNGL (Jun 10, 2010)

It's me or E90 becomes E84 at GR/TR border and E90 reappears a little south in Çanakkale?


----------



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

-Pino- said:


> Below a picture of a pull-through sign in the old style, followed by a fork sign in the new style. You will see that there is no E-shield signposted on the second sign, notwithstanding the fact that you are on E30. That is now policy for simple exits (i.e. not motorway interchanges).
> 
> The reason is that, when passing by a village like Goor, nobody will ever think "hey, my E30 could turn off here". So a confirmation after the exit that you are still on E30 is considered to be enough. In the old system, as the first picture shows, the E-route would still be shown prior to the exit.


Bedankt.
I see what you mean.

(Of course, in the U.S., you probably wouldn't get even that much: if it's obvious that an exit's an exit, they don't usually bother with a pull-through.)

Have you ever noticed that there are places in France where E-numbers are posted and domestic ones aren't? Like this: http://www.flickr.com/photos/chriszwolle/3215342329/in/set-72157612833075036
So the person navigating by domestic route numbers would have trouble: he'd need to know the exit number instead (I'm assuming that the E511 is also an N- or a D-road). This photo was easy to find: lots of exits in France just have an exit number and the names of various towns and landmarks (color-coded so that those who know the difference between a green and a white sign know that there's a main road there), whereas in the U.S. you'd have a route number too. I just needed to look for one with the little E-number plate stuck on the top.)

The "little E-number plate stuck on the top" is why I'm bringing this up: what strikes me as similar about that sign and your old-style Dutch example is that in both cases the E-marker is on a separate plate. I'm wondering if that indicates they may have been added, rather than being part of the sign assembly from the start.


----------



## sotonsi (Feb 6, 2007)

Penn's Woods said:


> Have you ever noticed that there are places in France where E-numbers are posted and domestic ones aren't? Like this: http://www.flickr.com/photos/chriszwolle/3215342329/in/set-72157612833075036
> So the person navigating by domestic route numbers would have trouble: he'd need to know the exit number instead (I'm assuming that the E511 is also an N- or a D-road).


The D road (D660) is reached via a fairly long spur of the A5 from this junction. A similar thing happens at Bordeaux, where the unsigned (and not an autoroute anymore, IIRC) A631 is just signed as E72 heading into the city.


> This photo was easy to find: lots of exits in France just have an exit number and the names of various towns and landmarks (color-coded so that those who know the difference between a green and a white sign know that there's a main road there), whereas in the U.S. you'd have a route number too.


Indeed, most of Europe navigates by destinations, not route number, which negates a lot of the point of E numbers, and also means it doesn't matter that much about having a coherent road numbering system.


----------



## -Pino- (Aug 12, 2007)

It's French policy not to indicate a shield for the intersecting route when the exit is numbered. One hint is enough, they seem to say. It certainly not a European thing to negate intersecting route numbers like that. Definitely not my style. But when an E-number turns off at a simple exit, the French seem to make an exception. I do remember the days on which French motorway numbers were not even signposted on motorway intersections, and only E-numbers were. The French had started signposting their motorway numbers in the early 1980s, but some motorway concessionaires did not bother updating their signs at major intersections until well into the 1990s.

As to the position of the E-number on the sign, the French usually stick their road numbers on the top of the sign, as you also see on the pull-through sign. So not a later addition. The old Dutch approach indeed was to stick E-numbers to the top of the sign. Initially, they were add-ons, as the Dutch only started to add these in 1985 (which was the year in which the second generation of E-numbers launched) when there were of course lots of existing signs that needed an update. But new signs placed after 1985 featured the E-number in the same way. Only in the 2000s, they started experimenting with A and E on the sign itself, and this approach is now becoming the standard on distance signs and gantries.


----------



## MattiG (Feb 11, 2011)

aswnl said:


> AGR is the international agreement on European roads, signed in Geneva in 1975.
> Under the AGR countries which have signed are obliged to signpost those E-numbers.


And the AGR replaced the initial European route declaration, "Declaration on the construction of main international traffic arteries", signed in Geneva in 1950.

The AGR agreement was initially signed by eight countries only, and it was in effect as of 1983. The Scandinavian countries put heavy reservations on the 1975 version, and did not join earlier than in 1991 after major changes were made.


----------



## MattiG (Feb 11, 2011)

Ingenioren said:


> Still forgot some:http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lista_över_motorvägar_i_Sverige
> 
> I like to have only one number like we in the Nordics do. And even Finland who has chosen to add national numbers on top are using the same number even on motorways.


In Finland, the E numbering is only an extra attribute to the national numbering. In the signs, the default policy is to show the national numbers on top. However, this policy is not always obeyed.

In case of multiplexes, all national numbers are shown first, then the E numbers. For example, the roads 3/E12 and 9/63 are multiplexed for 25+ kilometres, and the signs show 3/9/E12/E63.



















(Images: Google Maps)


----------



## Triple C (Aug 23, 2010)

CNGL said:


> It's me or E90 becomes E84 at GR/TR border and E90 reappears a little south in Çanakkale?


I meant, some dumb guys from Google labelled the whole D400 road as E90 either. Çanakkale-Ankara-Adana part of this is still labelled.


----------



## CNGL (Jun 10, 2010)

Triple C said:


> I meant, some dumb guys from Google labelled the whole D400 road as E90 either. Çanakkale-Ankara-Adana part of this is still labelled.


It's true. But AFAIK E90 doesn't go all the way to Irani border, it leaves D400 at Cizre and goes to Iraqi border. And it's labelled D400 by Google maps, too :lol: (It's D430).


----------



## Triple C (Aug 23, 2010)

^^ So it needs a report for fix.


----------



## Uppsala (Feb 26, 2010)

NordikNerd said:


> Malmö, sweden is connected with four E-roads E6, E20, E22, E65 but still there is only one of these connecting to the continent. I wonder is there any single e-roadsection that covers more than 2 e-road numbers ?


I don't understand what You mean here when You are talking about those E-roads in Malmö and connecting the continent.

*E6* is only going in Sweden and Norway. So this E-road is maybe not connecting the continent if You think Sweden is outside the continent, but I don't agree here, because I think we are all Europeans.

*E20* is going in Russia, Estonia, Sweden, Denmark, the UK and Ireland. So if You think Russia and the Balitic states are a part of the continent, ok, this road is connecting the continent, but from Malmö and south this E-road only going in Scandinavia and then in the Brittish Islands, the UK and Ireland. 

*E22* is going in Russia, Latvia, Sweden, Germany, Netherlands and the UK. So this must be the E-road in Malmö that connecting the continent. 

*E65* is going in Sweden, Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, Kosovo and Greece. And this E-road is ending in Crete. Ok, Crete is not the continent, thats an island. Maybe you think former of Eastern Europe and the Balkans is not the continent? But I don' agree with that. 

So I think all of the E-roads in Malmö is going in parts of the continent.


----------



## ChrisZwolle (May 7, 2006)

All roads lead to R.. Malmö.


----------



## CNGL (Jun 10, 2010)

^^ No, all roads lead to Philosophy. I will explain that later on the rest area.


----------



## NordikNerd (Feb 5, 2011)

Uppsala said:


> I don't understand what You mean here when You are talking about those E-roads in Malmö and connecting the continent.
> 
> So I think all of the E-roads in Malmö is going in parts of the continent.


This is what I think:



Gareth said:


> Additionally, I'm not a fan of numbers which disappear into the sea and then reappear at the other side and some of them just don't make so much sense and aren't really that useful. .


Only one E-road in Malmö which does not disappear into the sea, that is the E20 connecting to the continent via the Stora Bält-bridge.



Gareth said:


> Take the E20 which passes near where I live in Liverpool. It 'arrives' via the port from Ireland and then uses the M62, jumps into the north sea to Scandinavia, from where it has a little swim in the Baltic towards Estonia and then Russia. Now, how much traffic on the M62 leaving Liverpool seriously ends up following this route, even as far as Denmark & Sweden, let alone Estonia & Russia? It's an utterly pointless designation.


I really think he got the point: E-roads must be continuous and make sense if they are named E-roads, if the E-road is interrupted by the sea it should be renamed on the other side. 

The E65 Malmö-Ystad has a major gap before reaching Swinojuisce (I never get the spelling right :nuts, that is a 6h ferry, so this section should become a national road instead, let the E65 end in Swinojuisce, that would be the natural end for this road. As for the E45 which should end in Fredrikshavn which it did before.



ChrisZwolle said:


> All roads lead to R.. Malmö.


Yes,to Rome

But the swedish tourist board put some money into resigning the national road 45 into becomming the E45 not paying attention to the 3h ferry Fredrikshavn-Göteborg so now all roads lead to Karesuando ! (As if someone had a reason to go there)


----------



## Dan (Jun 16, 2007)

The E4 continues into the continent but it changes E numbers in Denmark, if I remember correctly.


----------



## Dan (Jun 16, 2007)

I really wish the UK used its E numbers, and Ireland more prominently as well.


----------



## -Pino- (Aug 12, 2007)

Dan said:


> The E4 continues into the continent but it changes E numbers in Denmark, if I remember correctly.


Nope. E55 stops the port of Helsingør and E4 stops in the port of Helsingborg. So exactly how NordicNerd wanted to see it.

I disagree with him, by the way. I think that it depends on the nature of the sea crossing whether an E-route should be continued on both ends of whether it is more sensible to start a new route. The continuation of the E65 from Poland into Sweden appears to me as a complete waste. Just signpost Ystad in Poland, and once you make it into Sweden you don't need a number to get motorists back onto the major E-routes through Sweden. Many other sea crossings in the E-network can hardly be considered to form part of a major international transport axis, so I would indeed plea against continuation of the E-route on both ends of the sea. As a matter of fact, let's get rid completely of E20 through the UK and Ireland, as it does not have any international throughfare value.

But some ferry crossings do play that role. Helsingbor - Helsingør qualifies from my point of view. Here, the fact that there is a bit of sea between two bits of a route should not prevent the E-number to continue. Ditto for the Puttgarden - Rodby crossing for as long as it continues to exist and the Sicily crossing in the E45 (even though I would not really bother if they simply terminated E45 at Reggio Calabria without any E-number being used on the Sicilian end).


----------



## ChrisZwolle (May 7, 2006)

E55 is the most useless E-road in Denmark. It runs concurrent with E47 for 85% of its route and the only non-concurrent part isn't even a motorway. It may just as well have been a Primærrute.


----------



## Uppsala (Feb 26, 2010)

NordikNerd said:


> This is what I think:
> 
> 
> 
> Only one E-road in Malmö which does not disappear into the sea, that is the E20 connecting to the continent via the Stora Bält-bridge.


Thats not correct. E6 is going over the border to Norway. So E6 and E20 connecting to other countries without a ferry.




NordikNerd said:


> I really think he got the point: E-roads must be continuous and make sense if they are named E-roads, if the E-road is interrupted by the sea it should be renamed on the other side.
> 
> The E65 Malmö-Ystad has a major gap before reaching Swinojuisce (I never get the spelling right :nuts, that is a 6h ferry, so this section should become a national road instead, let the E65 end in Swinojuisce, that would be the natural end for this road. As for the E45 which should end in Fredrikshavn which it did before.


Thats not the idea with E-roads. The idea from the begin was to have roads that continuous after a gap from the sea.



NordikNerd said:


> Yes,to Rome
> 
> But the swedish tourist board put some money into resigning the national road 45 into becomming the E45 not paying attention to the 3h ferry Fredrikshavn-Göteborg so now all roads lead to Karesuando ! (As if someone had a reason to go there)


Thats not for Karesuando . Thats for town like Mora, Orsa and other places around the E45.


----------



## -Pino- (Aug 12, 2007)

ChrisZwolle said:


> E55 is the most useless E-road in Denmark. It runs concurrent with E47 for 85% of its route and the only non-concurrent part isn't even a motorway. It may just as well have been a Primærrute.


E55 through Denmark made sense until the Swedes succeeded in their request to have the Swedish part of E55 renumbered into its old number E4. At that moment, UNECE should have taken the obvious next step and move the terminus of E55 to Rostock. Or the current E47-E55 intersection, if you really wish.


----------



## Ingenioren (Jan 18, 2008)

Uppsala said:


> Thats not for Karesuando . Thats for town like Mora, Orsa and other places around the E45.


Aswell as Alta, Hammerfest. E45 is quite important for Finnmark county i would say. I assume E45 extension isn't part of TERN? If it's valueable enough for TERN it should be valuable enough for the E.


----------



## sotonsi (Feb 6, 2007)

plus the E45 very nearly forms an international route across from Sweden stopping literally 100m from the border, and 200m from the E8 - silly Finns not going for that last little bit (they even sign route 953 with 'to E45' banners)

The E20 forms major routes in both Ireland and the UK, as well as Denmark-Sweden and Estonia-Russia. Just consider it as 4 separate routes with duplicate numbers. It's part of TERN on the western side of the North Sea, and only doesn't form one route as the E22 goes to Holyhead, which, rather than Liverpool, is the main port for heading to Dublin.


----------



## MattiG (Feb 11, 2011)

sotonsi said:


> plus the E45 very nearly forms an international route across from Sweden stopping literally 100m from the border, and 200m from the E8 - silly Finns not going for that last little bit (they even sign route 953 with 'to E45' banners)


It is not 200 metres but 800, and it is not 953 but 959.

The Finns are right. The Swedes pushed changing their national 45 to E45 while Finland was not that interested. The Swedes wanted to extend the E45 to the village of *Karesuando*, and the AGR agreement was changed accordingly.

However, the Swedes forgot the fact that the E8 runs on the Finnish side of the river, in a village of *Kaaresuvanto *(or Karesuvanto). Finland just follows the AGR agreement literally.

Karesuando and Kaaresuvanto are two different places, like Konstanz and Kreuzlingen are, for instance.


----------



## -Pino- (Aug 12, 2007)

The E45 through Sweden is part of TEN-T, but not all the way up North. Seems to stop at the E10. To me, inclusion into TEN-T shows some importance, but the number of roads within TEN-T is so large that it can be hardly a guideline for what should be two-digit E-routes. 

To me, the Swedish part of E45 is a route through nowhere, mostly important for traffic into areas that are / may be suitable for tourism on a larger scale. If it is of importance for the Finnmark area, it seems to be primarily as a means to cross from towns like Oslo and Trondheim to the E4, which is then used as the main route to the Far North. From a network perspective, I see little added value in elevating the full-length Swedish inland route to major European artery status. Its elevation was always tourism-driven and maybe UNECE should have resisted. But then again, many three-digit E-routes have a similar lack of network importance. Eventually, UNECE has failed to cut the crap in my opinion, where I think that limiting the network to roads really perceived to form the European backbone would have enhanced the use of E-routes.

In any event, the Fins clearly did not care, and maybe they above all did not want to be placed on the hook for the various road standard obligations that the AGR provides for.


----------



## MattiG (Feb 11, 2011)

-Pino- said:


> In any event, the Fins clearly did not care, and maybe they above all did not want to be placed on the hook for the various road standard obligations that the AGR provides for.


I do not believe Finland's uninterest has anything to do with road standards. Most of the E45 in Sweden is of rather low standard, and it is mostly a result of renumbering three-digit lower-class roads. For Finland, the E45 in Sweden just represents zero importance.

The standard of the Finnish road 959, that 800-metre spur to Sweden, is not different from the northern sections of the E8.


----------



## sotonsi (Feb 6, 2007)

MattiG said:


> The Swedes wanted to extend the E45 to the village of Karesuando, and the AGR agreement was changed accordingly.
> 
> However, the Swedes forgot the fact that the E8 runs on the Finnish side of the river, in a village of Kaaresuvanto (or Karesuvanto). Finland just follows the AGR agreement literally.


The Swedes can only propose extensions inside Sweden - it's not that they 'forgot', it's that they couldn't propose it to the E8 without Finland's backing. The Finns didn't want to propose to the AGR that it carried on that short distance to Kaaresuvanto and the E8, therefore the Swedes could only thus propose it to Karesuando.

Given they put the dotted line E45 banners on the 959, it seems that Finland could have had the E45 extended to the E8 at no more cost than they spent anyway.

All the talk of the E45 ending in a silly place, less than 1km from the E8, has the answer that Finland were being too snobby to get on board with the extension - not the absurd idea that the Swedes forgot that the E8 was there.


----------



## MattiG (Feb 11, 2011)

sotonsi said:


> The Swedes can only propose extensions inside Sweden.


Of course, they can propose anything. But the proposal will not realize without the support by all the relevant countries. And Finland was not interested, as well as it is not interested in extending the E45 to Alta.

Anyway, a funny decision by UNECE.

Matti


----------



## metasmurf (Nov 16, 2007)

As you may already know, E16 will be extended from the Oslo region eastwards through Kongsvinger, Torsby, Malung, Borlänge to Gävle in Sweden. 

Personally I don't see the need for yet another E-route between the countries, given that there are already 5 (E6, E18, E14, E12, E10).

Also, there are substandard parts. The road from Mobekk outside Kongsvinger to the Norwegian/Swedish border (36km) is a single lane road, example: http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=...P15Rol_C1Tyqy5bEI2rnSA&cbp=12,319.61,,0,-3.05

I don't know about the stretch form the border to Torsby since it's not covered in google street view, but it looks pretty narrow with an 80 speed limit (all 2-lane parts of E-roads in Sweden usually have 90). Furthmore, I don't think the strech Torsby - Borlänge is that great either, passing right through many villages/small towns.

All in all, there are some motorway, 2+2/2+1 expressway and decent 2-lane stretches, but what good does it make since more than half of the road is substandard. To me, this is yet another useless attempt just like the E45 extension, ultimately undermining the idea that an E-road equals decent road standard.


----------



## NordikNerd (Feb 5, 2011)

metasmurf said:


> , To me, this is yet another useless attempt just like the E45 extension, ultimately undermining the idea that an E-road equals decent road standard.


Most E-roads equals decent road standard today, but I remember driving the E4-section Norrköping-Nyköping at Stavsjö which was a quite curvy and narrow standard 1+1 road as late as 1996. 

I think the E-road should be of international importance, as a connecting link between countries.

The E45 through sweden starts in the port of Göteborg and ends in Karesuando which nevertheless is a borderpoint and swedens most northerly road. Still the poor traffic flow on these northern latitudes hardly justify first category roads.



MattiG said:


> ,However, the Swedes forgot the fact that the E8 runs on the Finnish side of the river, in a village of *Kaaresuvanto *(or Karesuvanto). Finland just follows the AGR agreement literally.



Interesting also that if you want to drive to the very north of sweden you have to use the finnish E8, because there are no swedish roads connecting to the very north of the country.



MattiG said:


> Karesuando and Kaaresuvanto are two different places, like Konstanz and Kreuzlingen are, for instance.


Any other twin cities out there? I think of Kansas City,MO and Kansas City,KS. 2 cities with similar names on different sides of the border.


----------



## Uppsala (Feb 26, 2010)

NordikNerd said:


> Any other twin cities out there? I think of Kansas City,MO and Kansas City,KS. 2 cities with similar names on different sides of the border.


Valga in Estonia and Valka in Latvia.

Komárom in Hungary and Komárno in Slovakia.

It is two Pello around the river Torneälv betwen Sweden and Finland, one in Sweden and one in Finland.

There are many other twins like this around the borders here in Europe.


----------



## Grisent (Jul 18, 2010)

On the Finnish-Swedish border, Ylitornio / Övertorneå also qualify I guess.


----------



## MattiG (Feb 11, 2011)

metasmurf said:


> As you may already know, E16 will be extended from the Oslo region eastwards through Kongsvinger, Torsby, Malung, Borlänge to Gävle in Sweden.
> 
> Personally I don't see the need for yet another E-route between the countries, given that there are already 5 (E6, E18, E14, E12, E10).


I would even say that the whole E road system has turned obsolete.

The idea was good in the post-war Europe supporting the recovery of the infrastructure. Now, almost every European country has a decent network. The only real thing the E road system brings, is an extra numbering layer.

Why should the United Nations bother about the European road network any more?

Like the E45 case, I believe the main interested bodies to push extending the E16 are the local municipalities in the middle of nothing. They think getting an E road nearby would bring gold, diamonds and money to them. There is some black magic in this thinking.

In the northern Finland, all the municipalities support the idea to extend the E45 to Alta. Even the municipality of Ylitornio has joined the gang even if the distance from Ylitornio to the closest point of the proposed E45 is some 200 kilometres. I cannot understand what significant added value the signposting would bring to Ylitornio.

Trying to get an E road nearby seems to be kind of a marketing action. It is quite far away from the idea of E roads.


----------



## g.spinoza (Jul 21, 2010)

Uppsala said:


> Valga in Estonia and Valka in Latvia.
> 
> Komárom in Hungary and Komárno in Slovakia.
> 
> ...


Gorizia and Nova Gorica in Italy/Slovenia.


----------



## Fuzzy Llama (Jan 24, 2009)

^^
Zgorzelec/Görlitz, Gubin/Guben, Kostrzyn/Küstrin in Poland/Germany as well.
There is also Słubice/Frankfurt a.d.Oder pair, but the names aren't similar


----------



## sotonsi (Feb 6, 2007)

MattiG said:


> Trying to get an E road nearby seems to be kind of a marketing action. It is quite far away from the idea of E roads.


That's how the UK treated them under the old system - they wanted an inset like the Rhine-Rhur region, so in addition to the E1, E2, E5 and E8 major routes (all linking London to the continent), and the E31 (London - Glasgow via East Coast), E32 (E33 - Edinburgh - Perth), E33 (London - Glasgow via West Coast), E34 (Birmingham - Holyhead for Dublin) routes that joined up the biggest cities, you had the E104, E105, E106, E107, E108, E109, E110, E111, E112, E113, E114, E115, E116, E117, E118, E119, E120 (Ireland got in on the act too with several E12xs, but it's worth pointing out that they had no E roads before '68)

Then again, the E105, E106, E109, E110, E112, E113, E114, E115, E117, E118, E119 and part of the E120 were all made part of the UK's E road network, which, outside of Northern Ireland, is really a rather threadbare grid.

Here's a map:


----------



## MattiG (Feb 11, 2011)

Maxx☢Power;79861740 said:


> And what's the harm in doing so?


For every administrative layer, there is an extra cost involved. I do not believe the benefits of the E road system cover the cost. Especially, I do not believe these types of extensions paying off the cost.

There is some hidden agenda in this case: By signposting the miserable road sections in Hedmark and Värmland as E16, there may be changes to get those roads upgraded. At least somebody believes in this magic.

(A similar strategy has not been successful in Finland: The national road 18 was created by renumbering a number of old poor road sections about 15 years ago. No major upgrade has been made nor it can be foreseen.)


----------



## -Pino- (Aug 12, 2007)

I also believe that the credibility of the system is at stake when E-routes get extended in this fashion. When coming across an E-route, you want the motorist to think "route of European importance", not "could also be a relatively minor road". 

A route numbering system should tell the road user something about either its function(international route, local route or whatever there may be in between) or about its construction level (motorway, expressway, etc). If a numbering system fails to do either, you'd better give up signposting them. Where route numbering gets dragged into politics in the Scandinavian way, you risk to slide into a very wrong direction.


----------



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

-Pino- said:


> I also believe that the credibility of the system is at stake when E-routes get extended in this fashion. When coming across an E-route, you want the motorist to think "route of European importance", not "could also be a relatively minor road"....


Don't most motorists seeing an E-number (except in Belgium and Scandinavia) think nothing whatsoever about it? ;-)

Incidentally, I've seen somewhere that in those places in Belgium where an E-route is laid out on a non-freeway, they're not actually marked. Is that true?


----------



## ChrisZwolle (May 7, 2006)

Penn's Woods said:


> Incidentally, I've seen somewhere that in those places in Belgium where an E-route is laid out on a non-freeway, they're not actually marked. Is that true?


I think so... For instance N63 south of Liège is also E46, but the number E46 is not used on the signage, only on kilometer posts like these:


----------



## Aphelion (May 29, 2010)

I'd prefer ditching E-road numbering altogether. For Sweden, I'd then introduce separate motorway numbers roughly akin to how current national roads are numbered (zones from south to north). E.g. E6->M1, E22->M2, E4->M3 etc. Shorter motorways and spurs could get two-digit numbers.

Just a crazy idea! :nuts: (Anything is better than the current mess of E-roads )


----------



## Uppsala (Feb 26, 2010)

Aphelion said:


> I'd prefer ditching E-road numbering altogether. For Sweden, I'd then introduce separate motorway numbers roughly akin to how current national roads are numbered (zones from south to north). E.g. E6->M1, E22->M2, E4->M3 etc. Shorter motorways and spurs could get two-digit numbers.
> 
> Just a crazy idea! :nuts: (Anything is better than the current mess of E-roads )


Sweden needs separate motorway numbers now so I think your idea is very good.


----------



## -Pino- (Aug 12, 2007)

It's not that I foresee an abandon of E-numbering, but my plan would be as follows.

In the Scandinavian countries, I would just give the E-routes a national number based on their current E-number. So E4 gets national number 4, E6 gets national number 6 etcetera. This is easy to implement as the countries involved have no national number that corresponds to an E-route in the country (to avoid confusion).

Identifying motorways is, in a way, a step that is separate from that process. As such, it could already be implemented on the non-E-motorways in these countries. It would be easiest to again revert to the existing national number. Where a Swedish Riksväg, for instance, has motorway status, you would just add the prefix A. So Riksväg 40 becomes A40 where it has motorway status. And when it turns into an ordinary road, the current Route 40 sign returns to the signs.

These simple changes -only a matter of prefix really- should provide for a much smoother transformation than to create a wholly new system with sequential numbering that starts at number 1. At least in Scandinavia, where the E-routes really follow one road, three-digit E-numbers are rare and duplexes scarce. In Belgium, the E-grid is too chaotic to simply convert into national numbering. And because a very logical system is in place anyway, I'd simply revert to the current A-numbers.


----------



## ChrisZwolle (May 7, 2006)

Why would you use an A-prefix in Nordic countries where they're called a Motorväg, Motorvei or Motorvej?


----------



## Road_UK (Jun 20, 2011)

ChrisZwolle said:


> Why would you use an A-prefix in Nordic countries where they're called a Motorväg, Motorvei or Motorvej?


Because it might still be regarded as an A-road - with national routes being B-routes and local routes C-routes.... Like they do in some countries...


----------



## -Pino- (Aug 12, 2007)

I simply picked A because that is the prefix most commonly associated with motorways. I would expect people in the Nordics to share that association, despite the fact that their word for motorway starts with an M. A is the prefix that people from the Nordics are used to for their travels to the mainland, after all. But I do not have any strong feelings against an M-prefix.


----------



## g.spinoza (Jul 21, 2010)

ChrisZwolle said:


> Why would you use an A-prefix in Nordic countries where they're called a Motorväg, Motorvei or Motorvej?


AFAIK in southern Sweden also "autostrada" is used.


----------



## Uppsala (Feb 26, 2010)

Sweden needs A-numbers or M-numbers more and more now. The motorway network in Sweden is built like that now. A-numbers can be a good idea. I think A-numbers can be a good idea because quite a lot of people knows an A-number means motorway in other countries. So if the part of E4 where it is a motorway is called A4, thats a good idea, because the Swedish people understand that means a motorway, and it means the same like Autobahn or Autostrada. And that means people from other countries can understand A4, A6, A18, A20, A40, A222 in Sweden are motorways.


----------



## -Pino- (Aug 12, 2007)

If they renumbered Swedish E-routes into national routes on the basis of the current E-numbers, you'd get the odd situation that "old" national numbers get numbers increasing from South to North, while the new numbers / old E-routes decrease as you get further North. Rv10 (old E10) would stand out in between all the Riksväger in the region with numbers in the 90s.


----------



## Kjello0 (May 1, 2009)

As far as I know the European Routes in Norway technically has the national route number as in the E-number. Out of the 13 European Routes we have in Norway, only the E-number 12 is occupied of the national route numbers. And National route 12 is an extension of E 12. It starts in the same roundabout where E 12 ends.


----------



## Surel (May 5, 2010)

I bumped into interesting thing on polish forum. What will be the route of the future E75 on Czech Polish Slovak borders? Of will the E75 take the A4 route? and then go back to S1? This sign from A1 Świerklany - Gorzyczki makes me wonder.



Kuban said:


> Dziś drugi koniec Gliwickiego odcinka A1.
> 
> 
> 
> 6. zoom


The current route E75 goes like this:










What would be it in the future?










I am not aware of renumbering on the Czech side. In fact the plans were that the future E75 would go only through Poland and Slovakia I guess. So this is what I tried to point out some time ago about the mess in the E roads planning.

Let alone that the logic of EU funding follows the E numbers in quite some number of cases. And perhaps this has also something to do that the polish A1 was substantially cofinenced by the EU, but the czech D1 not so. Actually this could be good business, first we plan E route, get the funding, later we re route it and get the funding again... .


----------



## ChrisZwolle (May 7, 2006)

E-numbering is a system of the United Nations, not the European Union. As E-numbers tend to follow major routes, it is logical they are also TEN-T routes of the EU, hence the amount of funding. Although it appears nearly all non-local projects are funded for 85% by the European Union, regardless if they are an important route or not. Maybe for "rural development" reasons.


----------



## Surel (May 5, 2010)

If E number follows some route now, it doesnt mean that it has to follow it tomorrow as well. There might be a better routes available tomorrow. The TEN-T planning should follow the same logic. I tried to point out, that when you want to have a concept, that concept should be working also in details. One of the details that doesnt work for either TEN-T or E numbers is construction of new routes in places where older but less sufficient routes are already existing. This only follows from the point that E-numbering system cannot really be compared to the Interstates system, because it is not either planned, constructed or upgraded on the same level of reasoning.

BTW I would like to see that statistic on EU funding of motorway projects in EU... this 85 % could imply only two things as most of the missing parts of Czech motorway network are projects of non-local importance and crossing or reaching the borders. 
- Either the Czech officials are completaly incompetent in getting the funds.
- These projects are not considered to be funded.

BTW, in this case, the TEN-T route follows different track, and that is the old E 75 route and R48 on the Czech side as E 462, funny enough that that R48 is marked on that TEN-T flyer as finished, when in reality there are works ongoing and will be ongoing (two lanes on a part, middle crash barriers and enlarging on a major part).


----------



## ChrisZwolle (May 7, 2006)

85% is frequently quoted by GDDKiA for new road projects. It also depends on the GDP of a country, the Czech Republic has a higher GDP per capita than Poland, so they will likely receive less EU-funding than Poland.


----------



## Surel (May 5, 2010)

Oh, ok, I did not notice you talk only about Poland. I did not mean it as some attack on Poland. I just thought it could be in general handy policy first to make impression that certain route is key important, after its finishing make another project and make it appear the same important. I see really as more determinant the incompetency of czech officials then the GDP, certainly in the past projects.


----------



## Luki_SL (Apr 11, 2005)

Surel said:


> I bumped into interesting thing on polish forum. What will be the route of the future E75 on Czech Polish Slovak borders? Of will the E75 take the A4 route? and then go back to S1? This sign from A1 Świerklany - Gorzyczki makes me wonder.


I think that the E75 will lead from A1 Gliwice-Gorzyczki through D1 Ostrava-Brno- D2 Bratislava. On the signs beetween D1 Brno-Ostrava, there are extra place for E-road stick.

Photo from: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=48423769&postcount=983


----------



## Surel (May 5, 2010)

The E75 was planned to go only through Poland and Slovakia, which is also shorter by some 50 km, but there are missing motorway parts between Katowice and Žilina. The space on the D1 board could be also reserved for 462. I have really no idea how are these things planned. One would expect they are, but perhaps the countries just dont discuss this...


----------



## Luki_SL (Apr 11, 2005)

^^Polish GDDKiA and Road and Motorway Directorate of the Czech Republic disscused about future of E75 road. I don`t know if there was any conclusions after this meeting.


----------



## mapman:cz (Jan 14, 2007)

The place on the sign is for E462 and definitely not for E75, CZ is constantly against this routing of E75. Czech proposal is to route E75 via S1 and S69 to Slovak D3.


----------



## Luki_SL (Apr 11, 2005)

mapman:cz said:


> Czech proposal is to route E75 via S1 and S69 to Slovak D3.


It seems, that Polish Goverment have another idea of routing E75  Is it possible to route E75 in Czech Republic for example in that way: 
D1 Ostrava - R56 Frydek-Mistek - R48 Cesky Tesin?? 
On the ather side it wouldn`t be stupid to route E462 from Olomouc to Kraków (through D1/A1 Gliwice>A4 Krakow).


----------



## Surel (May 5, 2010)

Luki_SL said:


> It seems, that Polish Goverment have another idea of routing E75  Is it possible to route E75 in Czech Republic for example in that way:
> D1 Ostrava - R56 Frydek-Mistek - R48 Cesky Tesin??
> On the ather side it wouldn`t be stupid to route E462 from Olomouc to Kraków (through D1/A1 Gliwice>A4 Krakow).


It certainly is possible, but I guess no truck would take this route due to longer and tolled road when going to Bratislava. I understand that polish S1, S69 and mainly Slovakian D3 will take perhaps a decade to build, thus temporally the transit to the South East (Hungary, etc) might prefer czech polish A1/D1.

It will be interesting to watch what will the completition of A1 change on borders in Bohumín (A1/D1) and in Český Těšín (S1/R48).


----------



## Luki_SL (Apr 11, 2005)

^^I think decade (min 6-8yrs) is the most possible time when S1/S69 will be completed.


----------



## mapman:cz (Jan 14, 2007)

Luki_SL said:


> It seems, that Polish Goverment have another idea of routing E75  Is it possible to route E75 in Czech Republic for example in that way:
> D1 Ostrava - R56 Frydek-Mistek - R48 Cesky Tesin??
> On the ather side it wouldn`t be stupid to route E462 from Olomouc to Kraków (through D1/A1 Gliwice>A4 Krakow).


Until the S69/D3 corridor is completed, the E75 route shall remain on Cieszyn/Český Těšín crossing. The route through R56 is pretty much a detour and is not sutiable for trucks, because I/56 in Ostrava goes right along the city centre and there are quite some environmental issues in Ostrava as well as in Frýdek Místek.


----------



## mapman:cz (Jan 14, 2007)

As for me, I'd prefer E75 on the S1/S69/D3 corridor and E462 all the way from Gorzyczki to Pyrzowice (A1×S1). You may take the E40 from Gliwice-Sosnica when travelling to Krakow 

EDIT: There is also a proposal to reroute E442 from the current rout through ValMez and Rožnov to R48 and new I/11 along Třinec and Jablunkov.


----------



## Luki_SL (Apr 11, 2005)

^^Is this proposal will consider by the UNECE organization in next meeteng concerning AGR?? (E-number roads). The meetings are every 5 years I think ?


----------



## Luki_SL (Apr 11, 2005)

I found interesting thing : Italian A15 should be numbered E33, but on the signs, there are E31... Correctly this E-road exists between Rotterdam - Ludwigshafen 









From : http://maps.google.com/


----------



## CNGL (Jun 10, 2010)

Yep. They signed it as E31 as originally appeared on the new system, but later UNECE changed it to E33. But Italy never changed the number.


----------



## Luki_SL (Apr 11, 2005)

^^Thanks for answer Italy haven`t signed for example E821 San Cesareo(A1 E45) - G.R.A (E80). I suppose there is more E-roads which aren`t signed in Italy


----------



## Verso (Jun 5, 2006)

OTOH, there's E751 signed in Italy, although it doesn't even run through it. It runs from Rijeka via Pula to Koper, not to Trieste. It's signed as E751 even in Slovenia all the way to the Italian border.


----------



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

Another example of E-numbering weirdness (and specifically yet another example of French signage for E-routes not agreeing with road maps):

From Chris' Flickr photos:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/chriszwolle/3216203604/in/set-72157612833173468/

As far as I can tell from any map, the E9 begins where the A71 branches off the A10. On this photo, they're directing E9 traffic off the A10 (and onto city streets) a few kilometers before that (specifically, here http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=47.949926,1.849051&spn=0.027996,0.087547&t=m&z=14&vpsrc=6 ). Which is a routing that doesn't make sense to me, whether the maps are wrong or not.


----------



## ChrisZwolle (May 7, 2006)

Maybe it's a pre-1986 sign. (A71 was completed between Orléans and Vierzon on October 24th, 1986, which is - by the way - today exactly 25 years ago).


----------



## Luki_SL (Apr 11, 2005)

^^If this sign would be so old, it is in fairly good condition


----------



## MattiG (Feb 11, 2011)

Penn's Woods said:


> As far as I can tell from any map, the E9 begins where the A71 branches off the A10. On this photo, they're directing E9 traffic off the A10 (and onto city streets) a few kilometers before that (specifically, here http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=47.949926,1.849051&spn=0.027996,0.087547&t=m&z=14&vpsrc=6 ). Which is a routing that doesn't make sense to me, whether the maps are wrong or not.


The arrangement has been changed. According to Google Street View, the road to exit is E60 instead of E9.

http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&l...d=TN4yXTgezmOVF6j4c4kj0g&cbp=12,195.73,,0,2.4

This does not make any sense either.


----------



## ChrisZwolle (May 7, 2006)

Well, that makes sense because it's possible that street view pic is older than the A19 motorway, where E60 runs across, which opened on June 16th, 2009.


----------



## Uppsala (Feb 26, 2010)

MattiG said:


> The arrangement has been changed. According to Google Street View, the road to exit is E60 instead of E9.
> 
> http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&l...d=TN4yXTgezmOVF6j4c4kj0g&cbp=12,195.73,,0,2.4
> 
> This does not make any sense either.


The signs is changed. And at the old picture there is an old sign for the number of the junction with the text Sortie 14. At the new picture there is the modern junction number with the symbol instead of the text Sortie.

I don't think they have so many signs with the old style of junction number in France now.


----------



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

Another issue there - although it's nothing to do with the E-numbers and I have an urge to shift this into the France thread - is that, if I were heading for the northern part of Orléans for whatever reason and had looked at a map and seen I needed to exit onto the A701, I wouldn't actually see any indication of the A701 (not even a blue sign)....

Europeans who complain - and with good reason - about American signage not giving enough destination information: the inability to navigate in Europe by route numbers is is the other side of the coin.

[steps off soapbox]


----------



## ChrisZwolle (May 7, 2006)

It's correct that Europe is less number-focused than the United States. The degree of numbering roads varies by country, especially in signing lower class road numbers. In some countries, virtually all roads are numbered and signed, in others nearly all roads have numbers but not all of them are signed and in others only roads with significance to traffic are numbered. 

The most troublesome country I've driven in regarding road numbers must be Switzerland.


----------



## treichard (Sep 5, 2009)

A few of us working on the Clinched Highway Mapping site have tallied up the total length of the E Roads in each participating country.

We also calculated a total length of about 171,200 km. 

Here lengths are counted only once along highways with multiple E numbers. We include countries that do not post E numbers on signs along with those that do, using an educated guess wherever we could not be certain of a route's path or end. Some countries document the paths well online, while others make no such attempt that we could find. Some countries also create well signed E roads that do not appear in the latest UNECE log or subsequent amendments.

We have excluded the seemingly non-existent E404 in Belgium, the imminent E16 extension from Oslo to eastern Sweden, the approved but not yet completed/signed(?) E579 in Hungary, and the newly approved E66 extension in Hungary. We have excluded Albania because the latest UNECE route log from 2008 excludes Albania, and we could not determine that the E road routings in Albania have been officially determined since then. 

The lengths given below are not exact, but they are likely to be correct to within 2%. 


```
Rank	Country			Length (km)
1	Russia			19308.5
2	France			13868.4
3	Kazakhstan		13395.7
4	Germany			10474.9
5	Turkey			9143.6
6	Italy			8615.5
7	Ukraine			8264.1
8	Spain			6528.7
9	Sweden			6395.5
10	Romania			6060.6
11	Norway			5874.8
12	Poland			5488.6
13	Finland			4304.8
14	United Kingdom		3805.2
15	Greece			3765.9
16	Uzbekistan		3372.0
17	Czech Republic		2638.7
18	Turkmenistan		2391.7
19	Bulgaria		2368.8
20	Austria			2311.4
21	Tajikistan		2294.5
22	Portugal		2234.9
23	Hungary			2209.5
24	Belgium			1834.4
25	Serbia			1815.1
26	Belarus			1765.8
27	Croatia			1672.4
28	Kyrgyzstan		1648.1
29	Netherlands		1645.1
30	Lithuania		1564.8
31	Slovakia		1517.9
32	Switzerland		1438.5
33	Azerbaijan		1416.6
34	Latvia			1255.2
35	Georgia			1188.5
36	Estonia			1002.8
37	Bosnia and Herzegovina	938.3
38	Denmark			936.9
39	Ireland			807.8
40	Moldova			784.0
41	Armenia			759.3
42	Slovenia		589.8
43	Montenegro		546.2
44	Macedonia		519.8
45	Kosovo			245.3
46	Luxembourg		212.5
```
We have also created a map of the whole system:
http://cmap.m-plex.com/maps/centermap.php?u=blank&sys=eure&c=sys&rg=eure&mv=0


----------



## ChrisZwolle (May 7, 2006)

Nice 

I assume this would make the E-system the second longest numbered highway system in the world? (After the U.S. Highway system that exceeds a quarter of a million kilometers).


----------



## Glodenox (Mar 26, 2007)

The E404 is not very likely to ever be built indeed. The two bridges that were already built for it were even demolished last year.


----------



## aswnl (Jun 6, 2004)

The UK doesn't sign E-routes. So why haven't you excluded the UK ?


----------



## Uppsala (Feb 26, 2010)

aswnl said:


> The UK doesn't sign E-routes. So why haven't you excluded the UK ?


I think they should include the UK because the E-roads in the UK exist even if they are not signed. And for example E13 are only going in the UK. Its going fron London to Doncaster. And all parts of E13 is a motorway


----------



## sotonsi (Feb 6, 2007)

Uppsala said:


> I think they should include the UK because the E-roads in the UK exist even if they are not signed. And for example E13 are only going in the UK. Its going fron London to Doncaster. And all parts of E13 is a motorway


That is why we included them. All E roads in the log are mapped, with the above-quoted exceptions, all signed E roads are mapped (so the E7 along the A65 in France, which is signed, but not in the log). The exceptions are (as far as we know) unsigned new additions to the log in countries that sign E roads well, and the E404, which clearly hasn't, and won't, be built.


----------



## -Pino- (Aug 12, 2007)

The UK has not ratified the Geneva Convention and is unlikely to do so in the near future. That means effectively that the E-routes named in the UK are extraterritorial. As if the Dutch decided to expand their A12 to Vienna and then tried to have the German and Austrian parts of that route counted in their motorway statistics.

So yes, you can calculate the length of the E-numbering system on paper and then you have to include the UK as it was included on paper. But the are very good cases to make for a focus on routes actually signposted. Deviating from paper to include an additional part of E7 and not deviating from paper to add all of Britain is only a nice thing to do if it's bragging rights that you're after. In other words if you want criteria that will help you to get as many kilometers in your system as possible.


----------



## treichard (Sep 5, 2009)

Another of the conclusions from our study is that the actual implementation of the E road system on highway signs or pavement markings is quite messy.

There is the single document (UNECE AGR, a route log of E roads) that is supposed to define the E road system to the precision level of city-city connections for the participating nations, and then there are 46 or more different versions of compliance with the system. They range from 

- signing all the log's routes (many countries)
- signing none of the log's routes (UK and others)
- signing some of them while not signing the others (Belgium and others)
- signing routes not in the log (France)
- signing routes with a different number than prescribed by the log (Italy)
- signing a route so that it doesn't connect to the same-numbered route on the other side of a border (probably these issues get resolved on one side faster than the other)
- signing dual paths or extra branches of the routes (France, Germany, Czech Republic, Spain, others)
- signing a path different than what the log dictates (Croatia and others)
- not having a highway that connects a pair of prescribed cities (Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan) 
- erroneous(?) signing of a route (many places)
- conflicting signs concerning a route path (many places)
- signing status or route path simply not determinable without going there in person (widespread)
- approved but not yet implemented (signed) changes (several places)

The first few reasons show why a strict adherence to the UNECE log isn't the best way to describe the Int'l E Road system that actually exists. In reality, the various countries choose to deviate from the log while agreeing to it. They don't propose to amend the log to their liking often enough to keep it representing the reality they create.

The last few reasons make a strict adherence to the "status of signing" impossible to determine without unreasonable effort. In these cases, the log is the best although imperfect source. 

So it is not practical to strictly assume the log is correct nor to count only signed routes. The reality is much messier than either method. It was a huge headache to sift through the numerous inconsistencies in E road paths and end points to deduce a path or end point that is most likely to be correct. 

The UK, or parts of the UK, have used E numbers on their highway ministry web sites referring specifically to highways in the UK.


----------



## sotonsi (Feb 6, 2007)

There's certainly provision for it in UK sign design manuals, and the reason they aren't is that they are not all on motorways (though that refers to the old system, to which we added a ton of routes in the 1960s). The UK was consulted on the new system, despite having not ratified the treaty, and the routes in the UK aren't just port-to-mainland-Europe to Republic of Ireland links (though really rather sparse compared to similarly densely populated areas of Europe), so it seems like they were intending that the UK signs them.


----------



## -Pino- (Aug 12, 2007)

I once heard (but not from any official source) that it had been the UK's intention to ratify the Geneva Convention and introduce E-routes as soon as all E-routes in Britain would be at motorway standard. Or at least the full backbone of the network, with the routes close to the ferry ports and in the North of Scotland being exempt. I furthermore understood that, in that situation, the underlying M-numbers would disappear completely. So M6 would become E05, M1 would become E13 etc.

Not sure though whether that has ever been the official line and whether it still is. In any event, we're not remotely close to an all-motorway backbone, so nobody needs to bother.


----------



## sotonsi (Feb 6, 2007)

-Pino- said:


> I once heard (but not from any official source) that it had been the UK's intention to ratify the Geneva Convention and introduce E-routes as soon as all E-routes in Britain would be at motorway standard. Or at least the full backbone of the network, with the routes close to the ferry ports and in the North of Scotland being exempt.


That sounds about right, with this being the network (the 1950 network was getting close to being 50% motorway so the UK had to make a load of routes to give them an inset, and kick signing them into the distance).










The 1950 to 1968 network was E1, E2, E5, E8 on the same routes as above. E31 up the M1, A1, A66, A6/M6, A74 to Glasgow. E32 on the A702 (E31 to Edinburgh), E33 on the M45-A45-A452-A5-A34-A50-A57 from Northampton to Liverpool and the E34 along the A5 from Cannock to Holyhead.


> I furthermore understood that, in that situation, the underlying M-numbers would disappear completely. So M6 would become E05, M1 would become E13 etc.


No, the one example of E road signage in traffic signs manuals have both a national and a E road number. M6 would have become E33, M1 would have become E33 and E106 and the M20 would be E2 and E5.

With planned motorways, Northern Ireland would be covered (M2-M23 route being the E117/E16 and M11 route covering the E118/E01), but there were huge gaps on both the 1968 and 1983 network - even if you take out routes near ports or in the north of Scotland.

That said, I'd suggest that the A12, A14 and A55 that have junction numbers and few flat junctions would count. However the A34 wouldn't. The Highways Agency signs E roads by giving longer distance destinations than they normally would have.


----------



## -Pino- (Aug 12, 2007)

sotonsi said:


> The one example of E road signage in traffic signs manuals have both a national and a E road number. M6 would have become E33, M1 would have become E33 and E106 and the M20 would be E2 and E5.


That's pre-1975 numbering then, so presumably a rather old example of (anticipated) E-route signage too. Did you find that example on the internet? Care to post a scan?


----------



## sotonsi (Feb 6, 2007)

http://www.sabre-roads.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=23339 <- this topic shows the new system on signs - though I'm not sure it wasn't just created by the user, rather than using a design. Finding old traffic signs manuals is very difficult and I did do a quick search of SABRE, but couldn't find the image (might have been an attached scan from a book, lost in the ether)

The new network, proposed in 1975, but not implemented until '83, was very pruned in the UK (which didn't help motivate the UK to sign them), due to German anger at the 1968 boom where the UK gave itself the above dense network, trolling for an inset on the map. The Germans asked the British civil service if they signed them, which is probably the time when the "when they are all on motorways, we'll sign them" came about.

Certainly when they designed the fonts for roads in the early 60s, they had in mind signing E roads - the Motorway font (for road numbers on motorways) consists of the following characters: '0' '1' '2' '3' '4' '5' '6' '7' '8' '9' 'A' 'B' 'E' 'M' '(N)' '(S)' '(E)' '(W)' '&' '(' ')' '/' '(NE)' '(SE)' '(NW)' '(SW)' ','


----------



## -Pino- (Aug 12, 2007)

It remains a bit of a mystery to me why the UK ever pushed for that inset on the map. I can see the merit in showing the rest of Europe how dense the UK motorway network was and how crucial the UK was for the European infrastructure network, but an inset on a map of E-routes is just beyond me. It's not the type of map that is going to be used by the whole world or so, likely more by people in parts of the infrastructure world only...

Looking at the E-routes that got designated during this 'inset' age, I'm not too shocked. The density is comparable to what you see just across the Channel, in the densely populated areas of the Benelux, Northern France and Germany. It would all have been fairly easy to reconcile with the 1975 grid. Those blue and pink routes on the map above that are not in the current grid would have ended up with three-digit numbers, which kind of tracks similar roads across the Channel.


----------

