In Europe, an international numbering of roads is implemented, the most recent version since 1975. It's copied from the American Interstate system, and the numbering is mostly similar. E-numbers are not strictly restricted to Europe only, they also run in the former Soviet Union, but not in the Russian far east.

More recently, additional numbers are added in central Asia, from E001 to E019.

What do you guys think of this numbering? Is it used in your country? Do people refer to E-numbers or in traffic information?

E30 in the Netherlands
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3470/3368611424_541ce2a1ce_o.jpg

E45 in Germany
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3330/3215563568_cf0ec3489a.jpg

E15 in France
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3470/3215243903_a10c48405e_o.jpg

E40 in Belgium
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3359/3213354638_bede22801d.jpg

E20 in Denmark
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3309/3212814047_5c87105414.jpg

E6 in Sweden
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3440/3215504009_3bbea6627e.jpg

E90 in Spain
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3316/3215519411_de67cf659d_o.jpg

E44 in Luxembourg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3441/3217478937_e393839511.jpg

Is there some better map? This one contains old good Czecho-Slovakia, Yugoslavia and Soviet Union.:D

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/60/International_E_Road_Network_green.png

Almost all Belgian motorways have an E number, so they're used a lot more often than the national A numbers in traffic information and in other conversations.

I personally like them. I can understand it looks a bit weird that we use them more often than the A numbers, but if that's what you hear all your life, you easily get used to it :)

Greetings,
Glodenox

There are a couple of degrees of E-number implementation

1) Countries that have E-numbers for all their main routes and/or freeways (FIN/N/S/DK/B)
2) Countries that tend to use E-numbers only for freeways, but not all the time (SRB/BG/MK)
3) Countries that sign E-numbers (nearly) everywhere (NL/F/E/P/I/CZ etc.)
4) Countries that poorly sign E-numbers (D)
5) Countries that don't sign E-numbers at all (GB, central asia)

I don't like them, because they don't make much sense. It's more important for them to include cities than draw a straight route.

I wish that my home country (the UK) would use the "E" numbering system. It doesn't matter thant it's an island....I believe the Republic of Ireland have started using them and they're even more cut off from mainland Europe.

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:

In Germany everybody always refers to the national numbering system and does it also abroad.

I don't like them, because they don't make much sense. It's more important for them to include cities than draw a straight route.

I agree. What should you do with motorways don't have an E-number? When you give them e.g an A-number two different characters are used to indicate motorways, which is not coherent. In that case you'll hear on the radio:

E35 Utrecht-Amsterdam near Abcoude 17 kms of traffic jam due to an accident.
A6 Lelystad-Almere near Almere-Stad 5 kms of traffic jam
E30 Amsterdam-Amersfoort near Baarn 9 kms of traffic jam

That doesn't look very pleasant IMO (and I don't mean the jams :D)

E-numbers on austrian signs:

http://img16.imageshack.us/img16/7199/autobahn1.th.jpg (http://img16.imageshack.us/my.php?image=autobahn1.jpg)

http://img16.imageshack.us/img16/1204/a23w0.th.jpg (http://img16.imageshack.us/my.php?image=a23w0.jpg)

http://img11.imageshack.us/img11/6087/27250.jpg

http://images20.fotosik.pl/305/42a886c49bb51cb7.jpg

http://images34.fotosik.pl/331/1ccdb5c59602f7d4.jpg

http://images32.fotosik.pl/331/e2c933897b081a67.jpg

http://i730.photobucket.com/albums/ww304/Pedziorro/89kmLegnica.jpg

they sign them here in HR but they are useless. nobody uses them. and they are unlogical because lots of new roads are made and they don't follow thme (actually, they try, but they are signed at all roads too). there are also some unlogical things because some E roads cross borders few times (they were made in Yugoslavia when that was not a problem) or they don't follow the best route. so absolutely useless here.

E-numbers can easily be used in Belgium and Sweden, because they match with actual motorways. The sole point about Belgium is then that it may be somewhat odd that there is one number for the E40 west of Brussels and east of Brussels, while the routes are not really connected, but that would be it. In many other countries, however, the E-network is full of TOTSOs and is everything but logical.

Take France. In the grid of E-numbers, odd routes should run North-South and even numbers should run East-West. But in France, routes run cross-cross and always via Paris. The French E-numbers seem to be based on the French motorway system of the early 1970s, i.e. almost nothing and very Paris-centered. The Netherlands is not much better. Why don't you just have an E25 that goes South from Amsterdam? Why is there an E35 that runs West from Oberhausen to Amsterdam? And an E30 that goes via the A20, A12, A27, A28 and A1 rather than taking a normal East-West route in the form of the A1 from Amsterdam?

So apart from just a couple of European countries, the E-system is one full of oddities that do not make a good numbering system to actually use. Add that national numbers add flexibility and you'll understand why national numbers take precedence in the vast majority of European countries. In those countries, the E-numbers are just a waste of space on the signs that could actually have been used much better.

Is there some better map?
The best one I know is at http://www.unece.org/trans/conventn/MapAGR2007.pdf

The main problem in my opinion is that the E-grid is actually a grid with cardinal directions, while many European countries have a radial motorway network centered on the capital and some other cities, so they don't match.

Belgium's motorway network is pretty radial, but it has implemented a rather logical E-numbering onto it. So it is doable, even though you'd have to accept that the radiales not running east-west or north-south will either be left outside the E-system or be given a three-digit number. Belgium has been consistent by giving a major route like Brussels - Luxembourg a three-digit number. France has not.

We have E-numbers on our signs in Estonia but they aren't used in traffic information. But then again, people don't use road numbers here at all so...:D

The main problem in my opinion is that the E-grid is actually a grid with cardinal directions, while many European countries have a radial motorway network centered on the capital and some other cities, so they don't match.

that's true, but also there shouldn't be a problem to make it out and to match E roads with important roads in countries. i think that E-numbering scheme need a revision (last was somewhere in the beginning of 1980es)

It surely would be doable (see my attempts on the Dutch forum in respect of The Netherlands (http://www.wegenforum.nl/viewtopic.php?f=117&t=5780&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=90#p250078) and France (http://www.wegenforum.nl/viewtopic.php?f=32&t=8848)), but would another revision be worth the hassle? I can't see people ceasing to use their national road numbers and start using the revised E-numbers instead? The E-system may be adapted in order to work better on a European level, but it won't ever gain on national systems that are tailor-made to national situations.

The sole objection against using national numbers only is that international traffic would have to change road numbers on each border crossing. Doing so hasn't ever bothered me on my international travels.

that's true, but also there shouldn't be a problem to make it out and to match E roads with important roads in countries. i think that E-numbering scheme need a revision (last was somewhere in the beginning of 1980es)

I agree. Interestingly enough, the old system was better at incorporating main national routes as the main E routes. The new system is more of a carbon copy of the interstate system, and it doesn't appreciate the differences between multi-national Europe and the USA. I understand the reasoning - the roads should pave way to a borderless Europe - but there's still a mile or two to go. However, it seems as though the new motorway systems built in Eastern Europe is becoming part of the E network, and that might improve things. Hopefully, the E65 will be aligned through Albania when their north-south motorways get up and running, for instance...

Also, the US is basically a giant block. Europe is geographic different with more peninsulas such as Scandinavia, Italy, Iberia, the British isles etc, making it less suited for a grid network.

Also, the US is basically a giant block. Europe is geographic different with more peninsulas such as Scandinavia, Italy, Iberia, the British isles etc, making it less suited for a grid network.

True. I think the current E30, old E8, is the only new numbering that has basically kept the old alignment.

A curoius note on the subject: I've read that British governments have been quite involved in E network plans and execution... but they don't number E roads themselves.

The old alignment was very much focussed on particular routes, say London to Athens. The problem of that old focus is that leads to random choices: what justifies one route number from London to Athens and why is there no single number for London to Helsinki? The original numbering was nice to identify a couple of European axes that required upgrading in post-WW2 Europe, but could never serve as a numbering system. As much as Europe has its geographical difficulties, I think a grid is eventually the only way to go in Europe, also because I can't see clustering as a proper alternative.

The UK has signed the Geneva Convention (which created the current E-grid and obliges the parties to signpost the E-routes) and was therefore involved in the planning of the current network. It has never ratified the convention though, so it has no force in the UK. The original plan was that the UK would ratify once all E-routes in Britain would be at motorway-standard. They apparently did not like the idea of having E-routes on non-motorways. I'm not sure whether that idea is still on the cards in Britain, but in any event, there are still plenty of non-motorway sections on Britains E-routes. Some of these are substandard motorway, some are 2x2 and some routes (particularly in Scotland, Northern Ireland and where you get closer to ferry ports) are even less. Quite frankly, I can't see Britain's E-routes ever becoming at full motorway standard. The E05 between Oxford and Southampton doesn't need it, nor does the E15 North of Leeds or any of the E-routes in the North of England, Scotland or Northern Ireland for that matter. One would have to reshape the British E-grid and accept gaps close to ferry ports to get close

The Republic Of Ireland have indeed started using 'E' road numbering. Here's an example:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c8/M8Tipperary.JPG

oh, it's really a LARGE prove

Someone has a slow connection. :D

no, just 17" monitor

Doesn't it adjust you the size of the pic? I only see a third of it.

Will any E-routes be extended into Morocco if this thing (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=757432) gets built?

We have E-numbers on our signs in Estonia but they aren't used in traffic information. But then again, people don't use road numbers here at all so...:D

The same in Latvia. :D

http://i730.photobucket.com/albums/ww304/Pedziorro/89kmLegnica.jpg
Is it possible a road with the same number (E-65) in another E.U. country, kiliometres away? I am talking about the new u/c Central Road in Greece (near Trikala) which is E-65 too

That's the same route. E65 runs from Malmö, Sweden to Chaniá, Greece. It's 3.800 kilometers long.

Thanks for the info i didnt knew that

Will any E-routes be extended into Morocco if this thing (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=757432) gets built?
Well, the E-system is based upon a rather odd definition of Europe. Apart from the folks that designed the E-route system, who else would consider the border between Kazakhstan and China as part of Europe? So you can never exclude an extension of the European road system into the continent commonly known as Africa. I hope we won't see another mistake like that though. If anything, UNECE should focus on improving the system rather than expanding a system that is far from perfect.

Quite onestly: What are they needed for? Ok, I see the point in signing main transit corridors, but basically, the only advantage is when going from Spain to Finland or so. Only lorries do so and nowadays, they all use satellite navigation which results in the fact that they don't have to care about road numbers at all.
So, basically, it doesn't really matter how the E roads are signed or whether they exist or not at all IMO as noone really needs them. It's ok putting them on signs when replacing old ones, but I don't see the neccesity in travel information or so.

As you said they were intended to be for truck drivers, as otheres don't really know both the E-numbers and where a given road leads, but you must notice that this idea came up long before car navigation.

For me nowadays an E-road means that it's simply a very important one.

Just important, not necessarily very. There are too many E-roads for that.

And I can name you a few E-roads that are not important at all. The Dutch have had the habit of giving 3-digit numbers to many of their motorways that do not play a role in the European network at all. And in France, there are E-numbers for a couple of routes that are not a motorway and would therefore not be seen as important, for instance Pau- Huesca - Zaragoza (E07) and Nancy - Besançon - Lausanne (E23).

^^
PLH: I know that it was intended for truckers. But because really every lorry nowadays has satellite navigation the whole system is nowadays basically unneccessary and noone would care if it wouldn't be there.

^^
PLH: I know that it was intended for truckers. But because really every lorry nowadays has satellite navigation the whole system is nowadays basically unneccessary and noone would care if it wouldn't be there.

oh, i know few of them in my firm. they more refuse to use navigation and they prefer classis atlases and maps. and they don't use E roads intentionally :D one week ago i had to locate one driver and when i called him, he said that he was at E80. %#$+"$/*!ˇ~ what bloody E80?! when he said A54 (France), it was much better information to me.
btw, as he mentioned E80, i studied it a little bit and i have found out that it even passes through Croatia, i had no idea about it sooner. (i actually knew all E roads in Croatia except that one). i know only where E65 is, E70 and E71 are

Well, I don't think we in Norway would manage without the E-numbering system now. The E's replaced original numbering, and now it's the only thing we have, and everybody knows the system. Then when you travel to Europe it's easier, because you already know the system, instead of dealing with a system where for instance "A1" can refer to roads in completely different places, just on the other side of one (more or less irrelevant) border.
There may be a need for some revision some places, though...

That's my opinion as a fellow European, eitherway:)

Much will depend on how the numbers are signposted. On German motorways, E-numbers are only shown on the distance signs, which makes it rather though to follow, say, the E45 through Germany. In particular, you would miss the TOTSO at Kreuz Biebelried and not find out until you discover that the E45-shield has suddenly gone AWOL on the distance signs. Also, references from a non-motorway to a motorway are always based on the national route number. If you are in Köln and want to take the E35 to Amsterdam, you'd have to rely on the signs to the A3. In other words, using E-numbers in Germany does not make any sense at all. Sooner rather than later, you'll have to switch to national route numbers, unless you really like to go through a lot of hassle.

Places like France, Italy and the Netherlands are somewhat friendlier towards the few people on their motorways that prefer the E-numbers over the national numbers, but signage is far from perfect and error-prone. Again, when seeing directions to a motorway from a non-motorway, you'll always be referred to the national number rather than to the European number.

As happy as I am to switch to E-numbers in Belgium and Scandinavia, I will always prefer national route numbers in the countries that use them. Just because they tend to be more logical and much signposted in a much clearer way. Having to a make a small distinction that you're referring to the German A7 (rather than the Austrian) is easily done and won't convince me into using E-routes instead. I would have loved to be a nice European as far as road numbers are concerned, but it just won't do.

There are a couple of degrees of E-number implementation

1) Countries that have E-numbers for all their main routes and/or freeways (FIN/N/S/DK/B)
2) Countries that tend to use E-numbers only for freeways, but not all the time (SRB/BG/MK)Wouldn't Denmark be in number 2? Not all Danish motorways have E numbers, like Route 9, 15, 16, 18 and 21 (and maybe others).

Is it possible a road with the same number (E-65) in another E.U. country, kiliometres away? I am talking about the new u/c Central Road in Greece (near Trikala) which is E-65 too
Why not? E65 comes across few countries (also both Poland and Greece). That's the same road.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/89/E65_route.svg/250px-E65_route.svg.png

Wouldn't Denmark be in number 2? Not all Danish motorways have E numbers, like Route 9, 15, 16, 18 and 21 (and maybe others).

Not in Norway either.. His definition is probably just a bit inaccurate. It should be about which contries that only sign the E-number on the E-routes, instead of signing it in combination with other national routes, like they do in the rest of Europe... Of course all countries have important roads/routes that are not desingated E-routes, and some of these are motorways.

^^

http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/9666/resizeofimg2695jq5.jpg

It's a bit different for Scandinavia (Dk/Se/No), who only use E-numbers on E-routes. It doesn't have to be an important road nor be in good standard tough. Motorways are so few as i don't think anyone has considered an extra letter for those in Norway. It is conveniant that the numbers are the same over the borders tough, atleast up here. National-roads change numbers tough (Except Rv93 and Rv92, Norway/Finland)

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3508/3274369015_c296ed42e4_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3149/2746672450_0e3885fa4e.jpg

When it comes to E6 who crosses the whole country, it has sort of a cult-status with books, songs and even a TV-show named after it:D It's not even supposed to be called E6, but E47 that it changes to crossing into Germany... But it got an exception, aswell as E4 in Sweden.

And E-numbers are also used for the local bike-routes in Oslo...

http://www.oslosykkelkart.no/tegninger/skilt4.gif

Iceland doesn't even have any E-roads...

Wouldn't Denmark be in number 2? Not all Danish motorways have E numbers, like Route 9, 15, 16, 18 and 21 (and maybe others).Not in Norway either.. His definition is probably just a bit inaccurate. It should be about which contries that only sign the E-number on the E-routes, instead of signing it in combination with other national routes, like they do in the rest of Europe... Of course all countries have important roads/routes that are not desingated E-routes, and some of these are motorways.I think Chris wanted to say that some countries sign E-roads only on motorways, while others also on ordinary roads. He didn't want to say that all Danish motorways are E-roads.

Belgium signs mostly E-numbers for motorways, but it's an exception on a few km off long motorway E411/A28 near Athus, here is A28 only used, and when it continues as E411/N81, only N81 is used. Then it meets up with A4/E25, and where E25, E411 is used... ;D

When 2 numbers are used on maps, they should also be signed i think, i have an old map over europe, where whole of Germany is only marked with E-routes. It's impossible to use E-numbers in Germany, and on non-motorway e-roads in France and Belgium....

Oh man that E10 picture is soooo beautiful (falls in love with E10 :D )

Oh man that E10 picture is soooo beautiful (falls in love with E10 :D )

The E10 isn't always like that...:lol: Nonetheless, a beautiful piece of highway!

Some of these are substandard motorway, some are 2x2 and some routes (particularly in Scotland, Northern Ireland and where you get closer to ferry ports) are even less. Quite frankly, I can't see Britain's E-routes ever becoming at full motorway standard. The E05 between Oxford and Southampton doesn't need it, nor does the E15 North of Leeds or any of the E-routes in the North of England, Scotland or Northern Ireland for that matter. One would have to reshape the British E-grid and accept gaps close to ferry ports to get closeAll of Northern Irelands' E roads will be on grade separated dual carriageway within a few years.

Which is more than can be said for Scotland, Wales and England. Then again, this is because the E roads tend to be rather silly in places - eg the E18 going across Southern Scotland, to link a port that doesn't see much traffic from England anyway (quite a bit more from Scotland, but they have ferries further north as well).

Non-DC Euroroutes in the UK are:

E01 Newry bypass - upgrade coming soon
E01/E16 M2-Larne - upgrade coming soon
E15 Perth-Inverness (sections). Low traffic (and why is Inverness on the network, but Aberdeen, Plymouth and other remote, and bigger, cities not on there)
E18 Gretna-Stranraer
E18 Carlisle-Hexham
E22 A160 Immingham (short bit to the dock, where you can't go onwards!)
E30 Carmarthen-Fishguard
E32 half of the whole thing - it's really silly as an E route, but I guess Harwich is a ferry port.

To be honest, the E roads in the UK are a mess. Why have both the E22 and E20 going round the north of Manchester? Why nothing to the West Country? You could make the A38-M5-M6 route from Plymouth to the E05 north of Birmingham the E03. Why end the E05 at Southampton, when those not parting with their container are going to Portsmouth for connections across the Channel? And what's great about Greenock? Why doesn't the E15 go the signed route up the M11? Tons of questions about the really rather strange routings. It's little wonder why we don't sign them - either they are pointless as they are basically one road (E13, E20, E24, E32) with maybe a little bit of something else, or they go somewhere wierd - either a place where you can't get a ferry onwards, or a place which isn't very significant (Immingham, Craigavon, Greenock, etc).

Oh man that E10 picture is soooo beautiful (falls in love with E10 :D )

But what is that strange marking on it??? In regards to overtaking permissions?

Anyways, in Romania, E-roads numbering is only powerful in one case: the DN 2 / E85 case (in which the E road number is used much more than the DN - i.e. national road - number). Other than that... I would say the E70 and maybe E60 get some share of interest.

All in all, I would say E-road numbering is a completely waste of taxpayers money. E-road marking in each coutnry could've lead to the completion of (say) a 30-km motorway. But they may have an excuse... in that the system was conceived before the GPS system was in place (and, oh, yes, the Galileo project is another fucking waste of taxpayers money just to show the EU's muscles in front of the US... and yes, that money could've been used to build the... say... A23 - A22 connection in Italy).

Have a nice weekend...

^ You want another motorway between A23 and A22?

^ You want another motorway between A23 and A22?

Something like A22.5 :D

But there is a plan to build that!
In fact a connection between A 27, A 22 and A23. Pretty neat.

http://aldorossi.splinder.com/post/17632552
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=674040

etc

There are a couple of degrees of E-number implementation

3) Countries that sign E-numbers (nearly) everywhere (NL/F/E/P/I/CZ etc.)


Must rain on your parade here: I used to live by the E-30 in Poland, and was visiting somebody in Den Haag. So the logical conclusion was to stick to E-30 till Amsterdam, of course ignoring the German part.

But as soon as I got to Apeldoorn, I had to forget trying to follow E-30, because it either didn't appear (and once not appearing is enough to get lost), or it had blue background (=I missed it).

Considering the cost of new implementation I'm not sure the numbers are necessary anymore in the days of sattelite navigation, but when I run into them, like in Belgium, I prefer to use them. At least I have one stress factor less when crossing the border.

PS I do wish Poland hasn't stepped out of the Swedish way of signing in 1984. Before then S3 was just E14, A2 was E8, etc. Now the E number is only the second standard. The advantage of this is that any important E-road can be rerouted without much administrative mess.

and, oh, yes, the Galileo project is another fucking waste of taxpayers money just to show the EU's muscles in front of the US...


Less swearing, more thinking:bash:.

Imagine what would happen if US turned off the system for civilian use in 10 years, when the usage of navigation will be 2..3 times bigger? Yes, a disaster. So that would be a great political tool of pressure.

Besides, give us physicist jobs.

Why not? E65 comes across few countries (also both Poland and Greece). That's the same road.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/89/E65_route.svg/250px-E65_route.svg.png
Yes, i know; as Chris explained to me... i didnt knew then

Less swearing, more thinking:bash:.

Imagine what would happen if US turned off the system for civilian use in 10 years, when the usage of navigation will be 2..3 times bigger? Yes, a disaster. So that would be a great political tool of pressure.

Besides, give us physicist jobs.

There are a lot of "what if"s that are *much more probable* than the NATO coalition breaking, and yet we don't invest billions of euros in stupid ideas in to projects related to these "what if"s.

Plus, the argument that "project x gives group y work" is very counter-productive (and reminds me of central planning and communism).
Work should be given to people by the market.
If they cannot find work, those people should take adult education courses to train for something that there is demand.

But as soon as I got to Apeldoorn, I had to forget trying to follow E-30, because it either didn't appear (and once not appearing is enough to get lost), or it had blue background (=I missed it).

Yeah, signs for E-roads should always be green, regardless of the rest of the sign's color. For example, E652 shouldn't be in blue here (http://i228.photobucket.com/albums/ee119/Verso1/a2gorenjska048kw7.jpg). The most ridiculous case in Slovenia is E59 from Maribor towards Zagreb, where it's in blue on yellow signs. :nuts: If they don't know it should be in green, at least I'd expect it in yellow, like the rest of the sign, not in blue.

E numbering in Finland:

http://wover.sin.khk.be/images/vaasa/12april/P1000924.JPG

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?

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.

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.

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".

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

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

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

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 :)

^^ 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!

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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?

http://www.faktaomfartyg.se/fennia_1966_5.jpg

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.

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

Yeah. :|

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.

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.

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.

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...

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.

Albania joined the E-road cooperation since 2006.

E762 Tirana-Podgorica

E852 Ohrid-Tirana

E853 Ioannina – Albania

E86 Korçë-Florina

E851 Petrovac-Albania.

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

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. :D 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. :)

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).

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.

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. ;)

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.

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

E33 and E46 are also rather useless numbers.

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

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/11/E22_route.png

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

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/11/E22_route.png

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.

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

What I don't like about E-system is that it completely ignores road standards. I'd not mind numbers being "out of sense" like the aforementioned E22, as long as the numbering system conveyed a sort-of recognizable pattern for road standards like highways, grade-separated roads, local roads and so. It would be far more helpful.

Either that or assigning numbers that represented logical routes between the whole of it.

Yeah, but it's quite logical that they will cross the border, don't you think? :lol: Except E653, which is the Hungarian M70, but it doesn't extend into Slovenia; how stupid is that?

The Swedish E4 is the Danish E55 :D

Stupid.

Sweden and Norway use the old E-numbering scheme, while the other the new. As Sweden and Norway use only the (old) E numbering scheme without national numebrs it was decided to not rename E-roads there as it would have been to costly (thousand of signs also on non E-roads).

E roads often doesn't make any sense. Just look at E22
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/11/E22_route.png
Even apart from the ferries, it is completely nonsensical route. It doesn't even come close to a proper east-west route in a grid. And the sole excuse you could have -the route links major cities- does not apply here. In the Netherlands, we're faced with the fact that the Amsterdam - Germany route goes via the Afsluitdijk rather than the much more direct route via Lelystad. In other words, a complete waste that could have been numbered so much better. But hey, that is the problem of the entire E-system.

E22 only makes sense for some solitary sections, but certainly not as a whole. Especially the north-south section in Sweden is out of par with the basics of the system. Generally, only E22 in Latvia and Russia make sense.

Sweden and Norway use the old E-numbering scheme, while the other the new. As Sweden and Norway use only the (old) E numbering scheme without national numebrs it was decided to not rename E-roads there as it would have been to costly (thousand of signs also on non E-roads).

You're wrong. Only the E6 and the E4 are (partly) incorrect. All other E-routes have "updated" numbering. For instance the E39 on the Norwegian west coast, that used to be E18 in the old system.

Sweden and Norway use the old E-numbering scheme, while the other the new. As Sweden and Norway use only the (old) E numbering scheme without national numebrs it was decided to not rename E-roads there as it would have been to costly (thousand of signs also on non E-roads).

This is wrong. Only E4 and E6 have the old E-numbering but it's integrated with the other E-roads with new numbers.

This is the old E-numbers Sweden with new numbers:

E3 - now E20 and some parts is E18
E14 - now E65
E66 - now E22 and some parts is E20
E75 - now E14 (new)
E79 - now E12

E18 had the same number in the old system but some parts in eastern Sweden is a little bit different now.

Efter the system has been chanced some new E-rods came to Sweden like E10 and E45.

^^ Thank you! There is no plan to renumebr E4 and E6, right?

E4 and E6 are the longest and most important roads of Sweden and Norway respectively. Renumbering them would require a large investment in new signs, without a clear need to do so.

^^ Thank you! There is no plan to renumebr E4 and E6, right?

Not now. Maybe in the future. But they are more interested about to renumber other roads in Sweden to new E-roads.

E22 only makes sense for some solitary sections, but certainly not as a whole. Especially the north-south section in Sweden is out of par with the basics of the system. Generally, only E22 in Latvia and Russia make sense.
If the UK finally got rid of its useless East-West E-routes, the number E24 would become available for use elsewhere. Such as on the Dutch-German section of the current E22. So you'd have an E22 in Latvia and Russia, E24 in the Netherlands and Germany and E55 for the Swedish part of the current route.

If the UK finally got rid of its useless East-West E-routes, the number E24 would become available for use elsewhere. Such as on the Dutch-German section of the current E22. So you'd have an E22 in Latvia and Russia, E24 in the Netherlands and Germany and E55 for the Swedish part of the current route.

But it's more logic to have the same number for E22 in Sweden and Germany. There is a ferry from Trelleborg to Sassnitz and that's a part of E22.

Uppsala, but you'll spoil Pino's idealistic master plan. He lost me at sign national or E-number only - the UK will have none.

I also don't know why duplicates can't exist, like they do in America. Ditto dodgy diagonal routes - the E road system has too much of a purity when it comes to numbers for me.

I also don't know why duplicates can't exist, like they do in America.
We don't have duplicate numbered roads on our Federal US highway system, as it strictly forbidden by law, the "E-roads" are akin to US Routes (an exception or two may exist).

What I don't like about E-system is that it completely ignores road standards. I'd not mind numbers being "out of sense" like the aforementioned E22, as long as the numbering system conveyed a sort-of recognizable pattern for road standards like highways, grade-separated roads, local roads and so. It would be far more helpful.

Either that or assigning numbers that represented logical routes between the whole of it.

That doesn't make sense. E-roads are pan-European roads, so it doesn't matter, whether they're motorways or ordinary roads (or mixed), their point is that you can drive on them. I know that national road systems usually don't follow the same principle (signing the whole route with the same number), but E-roads make sense nonetheless (except for their often weird routes).

We don't have duplicate numbered roads on our Federal US highway system, as it strictly forbidden by law, the "E-roads" are akin to US Routes (an exception or two may exist).

What about here (http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl=sl&msa=0&om=0&ll=36.039298,-78.826255&spn=0.001568,0.002411&z=19), f.e.? I-85 and US 15 at the same time.

We don't have duplicate numbered roads on our Federal US highway system, as it strictly forbidden by law, the "E-roads" are akin to US Routes (an exception or two may exist).
True, but you do on the Federal Interstate system.

E-roads aren't really akin to either US system - all three are rather different other than crossing continents and having a grid system. Numbering-wise, Interstates seem a better fit for E-roads in some respects, but the US highways in others.

What about here (http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl=sl&msa=0&om=0&ll=36.039298,-78.826255&spn=0.001568,0.002411&z=19), f.e.? I-85 and US 15 at the same time.
I was comparing E-roads to US highways, not Interstates, since not all E-routes are freeways and Interstates are all by definition freeways/ tollways. US highways can range from rural farm roads to 8-lane urban freeways.
EDIT
Were talking about duplicated route numbers, right?

About the E22...Even apart from the ferries, it is completely nonsensical route. It doesn't even come close to a proper east-west route in a grid. And the sole excuse you could have -the route links major cities- does not apply here. In the Netherlands, we're faced with the fact that the Amsterdam - Germany route goes via the Afsluitdijk rather than the much more direct route via Lelystad. In other words, a complete waste that could have been numbered so much better. But hey, that is the problem of the entire E-system.If the E22 would be rerouted via the A6 (which is just completed in the eighties), it would make sense as a logical route between Amsterdam and Hamburg, and continuing to Sweden. It would be easy if international traffic could just follow E22-signs instead of the national roadnumbers (A6, A7, N7 in the Netherlands; A280, A31, A28, A1, A20 in Germany). Now you have to navigate via the intermediate cities: first follow the signs to "Groningen", then Oldenburg, then Hamburg.

It would make sense as a logical route between Amsterdam and Hamburg, and continuing to Sweden.
Wouldn't it make as much sense to have a logical route between Amsterdam and Hamburg, and then continuing along the Baltic coast to Stettin, Vilnius and Minsk? The problem of route numbering is that you can't have one numbered route from anywhere to anywhere. Amsterdam to Sweden sounds nice, but so does Amsterdam to Turkey.

There is a reason why some towns are connected in the E-system and others are not. That reason is the grid system, which tells you that routes should run more or less east-west or north-south. So there is seemingly little reason to have one route connecting Amsterdam and Mid-Sweden. The logic of the system tells you that to get to Mid-Sweden, one should first take an even east-west route and then an odd north-south route. The more routes deviate from the grid system, the less comprehensible it is for the motorist. going back to basics is what drives my "idealism" when it comes to E-numbering.

So looking at the E22, I think that the better option for it would have been to follow the north coast of Germany and Poland (a combination of E22 and E28), rather than to move North to Sweden. For the connection between Trelleborg and Sassnitz, an odd number would have been more appropriate, which could then have continued all the way to Stockholm via het Swedish east coast.

E4 and E6 are the longest and most important roads of Sweden and Norway respectively. Renumbering them would require a large investment in new signs, without a clear need to do so.

Not really... only a load of stickers, just like they made when they renumbered the A-23 exits North of Saragossa (Also signed as E07).

About the E22...If the E22 would be rerouted via the A6 (which is just completed in the eighties), it would make sense as a logical route between Amsterdam and Hamburg, and continuing to Sweden.

No, it wouldn't. If one wanted to drive from Hamburg to Stockholm, he'd use the Fehmarn ferry and Öresund bridge, it is so much faster and more convenient. E22 doesn't make sense, period.

No, it wouldn't. If one wanted to drive from Hamburg to Stockholm, he'd use the Fehmarn ferry and Öresund bridge, it is so much faster and more convenient. E22 doesn't make sense, period.

Some people use the Fehmarn ferry but some use the Great Belt bridge instead.

If someone wants to go from Hamburg to Stockholm without any ferry, they take A7/E45 from Hamburg to the Danish border, E45 from Danish border to Kolding, E20 from Kolding to Malmö over Great Belt bridge and Öresund bridge, E6/E20 from Malmö to Helsingborg and finally E4 from Helsingborg to Stockholm. It's more people than we can belive are going that way. :)

What about here (http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl=sl&msa=0&om=0&ll=36.039298,-78.826255&spn=0.001568,0.002411&z=19), f.e.? I-85 and US 15 at the same time.

I think the words you're looking for is concurrency or duplex. Route duplication for means two different roads have the same number in the state/country(i.e having I-24 and US-24 in Illinois).

Not really... only a load of stickers, just like they made when they renumbered the A-23 exits North of Saragossa (Also signed as E07).

The E07 is 250km long, the E 4 is 1590 km and runs through most of sweden. Also its not only the signs following the roads that need a sticker also the signs pointing out the direction to the E4.

The stickers need to be reflecting and long lasting in heat and extreme cold.


Its just not a good idea.

The E07 is 250km long, the E 4 is 1590 km and runs through most of sweden. Also its not only the signs following the roads that need a sticker also the signs pointing out the direction to the E4.

The stickers need to be reflecting and long lasting in heat and extreme cold.


Its just not a good idea.

The road in Spain is not signed E07, it's signed E7. The road is signed E7 in Spain and E07 in France.

If someone wants to go from Hamburg to Stockholm without any ferry, they take A7/E45 from Hamburg to the Danish border, E45 from Danish border to Kolding, E20 from Kolding to Malmö over Great Belt bridge and Öresund bridge, E6/E20 from Malmö to Helsingborg and finally E4 from Helsingborg to Stockholm. It's more people than we can belive are going that way. :)

Yes, that is my favorite route. I usually travel without schedule, so ferries are an annoyance when you travel last-minute. It doesn't matter in time and cost which route you take. Although I feel the bridge tolls are too extravagant for non-regular users. Denmark is wealthy enough to finance such projects at least partially by tax money. And a bridge also doesn't need to be paid off within 20 years.

Yes, but it´s a question of which way you are coming from. Let´s see: If you are from Berlin,Prag,Wien and further east I would prefer Rostock-Gedser ferry and south motorway via Køge.

Some people use the Fehmarn ferry but some use the Great Belt bridge instead.

If someone wants to go from Hamburg to Stockholm without any ferry, they take A7/E45 from Hamburg to the Danish border, E45 from Danish border to Kolding, E20 from Kolding to Malmö over Great Belt bridge and Öresund bridge, E6/E20 from Malmö to Helsingborg and finally E4 from Helsingborg to Stockholm. It's more people than we can belive are going that way. :)

Yeah but actually less than you think. Traffic analysis carried out in conjunction with the Fehmarn Belt project to see how much the Fehmarn Belt link would relieve the E20 motorway across Funen and The Little Belt, showed that E20 will only be relieved with around 500-600 cars a day, when the Fehmarn Belt project is completed. http://www.vejdirektoratet.dk/publikationer/VDrap318/index.htm
Page 124

The road in Spain is not signed E07, it's signed E7. The road is signed E7 in Spain and E07 in France.

No, is signed E-7, with dash. And even I saw a couple of new signs with E-07 written in they.

How does the zero padding work in practice (i.e., on highway signs) for E01 - E09 (Western & Northern Europe) and E001 - E019 (Asia) in each country? Does each country decide for themselves whether to include the leading zeroes, regardless of the official E01-E09 and E001-E019 designations?

===============

Also, I found an interesting rant from Romania concerning the expansion of the E numbering eastward into Asia. This was presented officially to the UNECE Working Party on Road Transport in 2000.
http://www.unece.org/trans/doc/2000/sc1/TRANS-SC1-2000-11e.pdf

The "AGR" mentioned is the multinational agreement document that lists all the E route city-to-city descriptions in its Annex I and the physical road standards for E routes in Annex II.
(http://www.unece.org/trans/doc/2008/sc1/ECE-TRANS-SC1-384e.pdf)

Romania considers that the E-road network has already been extended too much both (1) in
the number of routes on European territory, hence the length of the network itself has
increased considerably, and (2) in the number of routes outside the European continent
reaching into the Asian continent. Many of these routes do not meet the geometric and
structural requirements established by Annex II to the AGR. Notwithstanding, as long as the
characteristics of these itineraries (geometry, particularly horizontal plane, and bearing
capacity) are not the minimum required by Annex 2, the E-road network could only have a
guiding character. Otherwise, users will anyway choose the most convenient routes for them,
without taking into consideration whether the road is E or non-E.

The exaggerated extension of the E-road network will considerably distort the original idea on
which the creation of this network was based many years ago.

Romania proposes hereby that a map of all E-roads be prepared as soon as the present round
of amendments has ended, preferably by means of computer so that it can be periodically
updated, by using two colours: (1) one colour for routes which completely meet the
requirements established by the Annex II of the AGR and (2) another colour for those
E-roads which do not yet meet all the requirements of Annex II.

Romania proposes that a clear distinction be made between the E-road network and the
A (Asia) road network. According to traditions, Europe extends up to the Ural mountains,
hence, the E-road network should somehow reach that far.

A number of E-roads have already penetrated into Asian territory (therefore they overlap with
A roads) but, nevertheless, the E and A road networks should be distinct in order not to create
confusion for their users.

In order for the European countries to be able to better configure the E-road network, Romania
requests that Asian Highway road maps be distributed to all European countries, in other
words the maps equivalent to E-road maps, in order to see how the two networks are
interconnected.

Also, from the network operations point of view, taking into consideration that lately road
traffic on both continents is interacting more and more, increased cooperation is needed
between the Transport Divisions of the two Economic Commissions, i.e. UN/ECE and
UN/ESCAP. Not only should the configuration of the two networks be the object of this
cooperation but also ensuring uniform conditions for the flow of traffic (e.g. geometric and
structural capacity of the routes, specific conventions for traffic management, i.e. road signing
and marking, vehicle size dimensions and weights, taxation systems for road users etc.) is
equally important. Particular attention should be given to traffic management and operational
aspects since they dramatically influence the performance of the infrastructure.

Along the same lines, Romania wishes to reiterate that within the European Union area,
including the countries which have started negotiations for accession, Romania included,
intensive work is under way on harmonizing legislation including that regarding transport
facilitation in all respects. This process, which is part of the global accession process, is very
advanced as far as Romania is concerned. This is one more reason to keep the AGR with all
its ramifications, to the extent possible, within the European space.

No, is signed E-7, with dash. And even I saw a couple of new signs with E-07 written in they.

They have a dash on all E-road signs in Spain. E80 is signed E-80. In the official lists from UNECE the roads are E04 and E07. But most of the countries who have the roads E01-E09 just sign them E1-E9, with or without dash. So it is not right to call E4 and E7 different like one here did.

How does the zero padding work in practice (i.e., on highway signs) for E01 - E09 (Western & Northern Europe) and E001 - E019 (Asia) in each country? Does each country decide for themselves whether to include the leading zeroes, regardless of the official E01-E09 and E001-E019 designations?

===============

Also, I found an interesting rant from Romania concerning the expansion of the E numbering eastward into Asia. This was presented officially to the UNECE Working Party on Road Transport in 2000.
http://www.unece.org/trans/doc/2000/sc1/TRANS-SC1-2000-11e.pdf

The "AGR" mentioned is the multinational agreement document that lists all the E route city-to-city descriptions in its Annex I and the physical road standards for E routes in Annex II.
(http://www.unece.org/trans/doc/2008/sc1/ECE-TRANS-SC1-384e.pdf)

E-roads in Asia exist only in former Sovjet countries and in Asian part of Turkey.

http://mw2.google.com/mw-panoramio/photos/medium/38483832.jpg
http://www.panoramio.com/photo/38483832
E65 road in Zielona Góra, view to the south.
http://mw2.google.com/mw-panoramio/photos/medium/34905299.jpg
http://www.panoramio.com/photo/34905299
E65 road in Zielona Góra, view to the north.
http://mw2.google.com/mw-panoramio/photos/medium/11794780.jpg
http://www.panoramio.com/photo/11794780
E65 road by Zawada.
http://mw2.google.com/mw-panoramio/photos/medium/11923019.jpg
http://www.panoramio.com/photo/11923019
E65/E30 by Świebodzin.
http://mw2.google.com/mw-panoramio/photos/medium/11922885.jpg
http://www.panoramio.com/photo/11922885
E65/E30 junction by Świebodzin.

I'm thinking of making a great overhaul of the E-routes. Sometimes they don't make sense, so how about start over and design our European route system?

OK, here's an idea. It's totally off the top of my head and certainly has a whole long list of problems, but...

Seeing that:

1) In most countries, the road network tends to take a more-or-less radial shape, and is numbered as such, and establishing an international network on top of that is inevitably going to feel unnatural;

2) The existing E-road network does not fulfill the task of helping people to navigate between important European cities. (Google Maps advises me to take the E30, E34, E37, E40, E42, and E19 from Berlin to Paris);

how about we:

* abolish E-numbers altogether;

* let every country keep its own number system;

* instead, establish a list of pan-European control cities;

* select the best routes between them;

* and install green E-signage that guides towards these cities (if they are not signposted yet). Signs would have only city names, and some unified symbol to signify the E-network (since in several countries signage is green anyway, and there must be something to distinguish the E-routes)

Signage towards a particular city may start quite early, 500 km+ (Zürich could signpost Rome; Marseille and Bordeaux could signpost Madrid, Barcelona and possibly Lisbon). It might be incorporated onto existing gantry and roadside signs, or if it doesn't fit, on separate signs.

Why no numbers? I suspect that any numbering scheme is likely to gravitate either towards a) the current grid system, that can be useful in some cases, but certainly not for everybody, or b) the system I described above, but with numbers added, and that would mean a lot of multiplexed numbers.

As an example: exiting Hamburg towards north we might have:

http://img156.imageshack.us/img156/7230/eroad.jpg (http://img156.imageshack.us/i/eroad.jpg/)

Of course, there is certainly room for improving the number system. I am looking forward to those proposals as well. :)

You already have these "control cities" on the boards. The E numbering isnt bad, it's just that national plannig preceeds european planning and the E numbering is therefore in delay behind the reality. More flexibility and communication between the national authority and E authority would solve the problem.

The biggest problem with E-numbering is the grid, it's too rigid and doesn't fit the road network or geography of Europe very well.

You could lax the grid and allow Paris - Berlin and Paris - Rome routes (for instance), I guess, but it still doesn't solve the problem that Europe and a grid don't go.

I don't think that the E-road network is particularly dependent on local planning, or that keeping it up to date is one of its foremost issues. Rather, the question is how the network is (or should be) fundamentally designed.

If you are pointing out that not all national authorities are signposting E-numbers and not all of them are doing it consistently -- that's definitely a valid point. However, the question, whether the numbers actually signify anything meaningful or not, remains.

Re: the grid - indeed it is too rigid; that's why I was imagining a more free-form solution.

I mean more the fact that the actual network is designed with priority for national purposes, not for European purposes. There is certainly concept of connections by the E roads, however problem persists. You can notice it when following the E number on map, when it cross the border, its direction starts to be confusing because of the new national system and is not anymore so straight pursuing its goal. Also many times on longer distances, several routes between two places are possible. Europe is just too densely populated and urbanized. Sure if you would chose ten locations and connect them with ten numbers it would be easy to see right away. You cannot compare it with US or Chineese system as these are designen on much grandeous scale. European TENT moreover doesnt lay out the practical routes, just gives the heading of connections that should be followed. National authorities will not create european superhigways across the continent, as these doesnt pay back in terms of fullfilling their country need. Thus the main motorway in given country might take most attention while it is not the main trainsit route from a european point of view and vice versa.

The problem I saw is that with new national construction should be the E routes also upgraded to utilize the fastest way in its general direction for the transit drivers. Anyway with modern era navigation system, or good up to date map, there should be no problem for any driver to drive throughout Europe with or without numbers of any kind.

To be honest, I think that the EU should be treated as a single country when it comes to roads. Just standardise everything and create names and standards for roads as you would if it was just one country. There would be a lot of work needed, most current signs would need to be changed, etc. but that is doable and in the long term, it would create a very clear and simple system that we would all be proud of.

E.g. say we follow the British system and denote motorways as M and national roads as A. In this case, e.g. road Amsterdam-Berlin-Warsaw would just be called M1 in sections that are of motorway standard and A1 in sections that are not yet of motorway standard. There wouldn't be another M1 or A1 in any other country. Personally, I don't care if the road next to my city is called M1, A1 or Z233 as long as the denotation system is clearly explained to me. I think its the case for most people.

E-numbers are the next best thing but they are more of a temporary solution than anything else.

As far as I know, there used to be two separate E-numbering systems. There was a system that ran from 1950 to 1975, and was significantly different than that of today. Some Scandinavian E-routes still follow the old routes (E4, E6). The 1975 E-numbering system is the current one. The system was expanded in 2001 when UNECE thought it was a good idea to include central Asia and the Caucasus.

As far as I know, there used to be two separate E-numbering systems. There was a system that ran from 1950 to 1975, and was significantly different than that of today. Some Scandinavian E-routes still follow the old routes (E4, E6). The 1975 E-numbering system is the current one. The system was expanded in 2001 when UNECE thought it was a good idea to include central Asia and the Caucasus.

That is absolutely true. The old system, finally discontinued in the 80s, was, in many ways, far more sensible. You had a few long routes (single-digit plus low double-digit) runnling along reasonably sensible alignments through Europe and then higher double-digit routes for the not-so-long sections between important cities and places. The E6, for instance, used to run all the way from Kirkenes to Rome.

To be honest, I think that the EU should be treated as a single country when it comes to roads. Just standardise everything and create names and standards for roads as you would if it was just one country.No thanks. There's no need at all to do that.

E.g. say we follow the British system and denote motorways as M and national roads as A. In this case, e.g. road Amsterdam-Berlin-Warsaw would just be called M1 in sections that are of motorway standard and A1 in sections that are not yet of motorway standard. There wouldn't be another M1 or A1 in any other country. Why M and A ? No thanks. M doesn't mean a thing outside GB, H and RUS. And the prefix A means motorway in most of all EU-states.

Also to be mentioned: you would have 3-digit or 4-digit numbers in certain areas, which would be very much alike. Totally inefficient.

There's only one best solution: abolish E-routes alltogether, and keep to the existing national systems.

Usage of M for motorway denotation was just an example. I am not British so I am not biased towards such denotation, like I said, I would be happy even if all motorways were denoted as Z. But that is my opinion. I have no problems with 3 digit numbers either, and even so I don't think that they'd be very common as surely there wouldn't be many more motorways than 100 in the EU any time soon once you connect them into a single system. Do you really care if the motorway next to your town is called A99 or A1 that much?

I don't want to turn this into a pro-EU/anti-EU debate, I simply disagree with you and think that such system would be more and not less efficient, especially for people from smaller countries that drive across borders a lot. By the way, when I said that standards should be the same across the EU I meant minimum standards and standardisation of colours for motorway and non-motorway signs. I am aware that standards in the Netherlands are higher than in other countries, but it would stay as is.

^^
There are quite a lot of motorways and a further more national/1st class roads in Europe outside the E-numbering system, so not just 4-digits, but probably 5-digit numbers would be required unfortunately.

I also feel that the system as it is now, is rather useless, so either it should be scrapped or modified in a more logical way, but at the moment most European countries have other problems (financial crisis) than to also having to replace thousands of signs in their roads. So it is better just to ignore it if there is national numbering too or use on a national basis in countries it is included in the local numbering system (Scandinavia, Belgium, Serbia).

A blue or green sticker doesn't cost that much ;)

E.g. say we follow the British system and denote motorways as M and national roads as A. In this case, e.g. road Amsterdam-Berlin-Warsaw would just be called M1 in sections that are of motorway standard and A1 in sections that are not yet of motorway standard.

Agree. Some sort of EU Interstates should be introduced.

Agree. Some sort of EU Interstates should be introduced.

That's kind of what the E-road network was supposed to become.

Ok guys, since most of you live in Europe maybe you can help me plan a travel route. Next year I am planning a visit to Blerick/Venlo, NL and then a drive up to Stockholm. Would crossing into Germany and taking Autobahn 40 into the Duisburg then to Autobahn 3 to Autobahn 2 to Autobahn 52 and then onto Autobahn 43 to Autobahn 1 at Munster and stay on 1 until the ferry for Denmark (Puttgarden-Rodbyhavn) then stay on E47 through Copenhaven and up to the ferry at (Helsingor-Helsingborg and follow E4 all the way to STHLM? I have NEVER driven in Europe and looking at a map is a mess especially Ruhr Valley metro areas.

Ok guys, since most of you live in Europe maybe you can help me plan a travel route. Next year I am planning a visit to Blerick/Venlo, NL and then a drive up to Stockholm. Would crossing into Germany and taking Autobahn 40 into the Duisburg then to Autobahn 3 to Autobahn 2 to Autobahn 52 and then onto Autobahn 43 to Autobahn 1 at Munster and stay on 1 until the ferry for Denmark (Puttgarden-Rodbyhavn) then stay on E47 through Copenhaven and up to the ferry at (Helsingor-Helsingborg and follow E4 all the way to STHLM? I have NEVER driven in Europe and looking at a map is a mess especially Ruhr Valley metro areas.

Why take the ferry from Helsingør to Helsingborg when you can take the bridge from Copenhagen to Malmö? That's not a good idea. The bridge from Malmö to Copenhagen is better than the ferry from ferry from Helsingør to Helsingborg. If you go from Copenhagen to Stockholm you should take E20 from Copnhagen to Malmö, E6/E20 from Malmö to Helsingborg and E4 from Helsingborg to Stockholm.

First of all, get rid of the thought you only follow road numbers. In Europe, you follow control cities, not cardinal directions or road numbers, though it is possible to navigate by road numbers on major roads.

OK :) so best to take Oresunds bron instead of ferry to Helsingborg and focus on control cities not route numbers.

@ Uppsala: I thought perhaps by taking the Helsingborg ferry instead of E20 to Malmo would save time. At least looking at a map it looks that way, but this is not true? Is the ferry slow and not on schedule or is E20 just faster travel speeds?
I have no issue taking either route and quite frankly would love to take the Oresunds and see Torso en route.

@ ChrisZwolle: So I think from an American view we just follow route numbers by habit. By the looks of the Rhur region this will only get me lost and next thing I know I'm face down ass up in Prague :eek:
So follow control cities. Peanuts! easy enough.

Tak/Bedankt :)

OK :) so best to take Oresunds bron instead of ferry to Helsingborg and focus on control cities not route numbers.

@ Uppsala: I thought perhaps by taking the Helsingborg ferry instead of E20 to Malmo would save time. At least looking at a map it looks that way, but this is not true? Is the ferry slow and not on schedule or is E20 just faster travel speeds?
I have no issue taking either route and quite frankly would love to take the Oresunds and see Torso en route.

@ ChrisZwolle: So I think from an American view we just follow route numbers by habit. By the looks of the Rhur region this will only get me lost and next thing I know I'm face down ass up in Prague :eek:
So follow control cities. Peanuts! easy enough.

Tak/Bedankt :)

I agree with ChrisZwolle. Follow the control cities, not the road numbers. And see what road numbers are going to the cities.

And you should notice you can go from Hamburg to Stockholm without any ferry. Just take the motorway from Hamburg via Flensburg, Kolding, Odense, Nyborg, Korsør, Copenhagen, Malmö. Helsingborg, Jönköping and you are coming to Stockholm without any ferry. :happy:

You are definitely not saving time if you take the ferry from Helsingør to Helsingborg. That takes much longer time. If you want to save time you should take the bridge from Copenhagen to Malmö called Öresundsbron.

It's not that hard to bypass the Ruhr region.

First of all, you will enter Germany on A40 towards Duisburg, then you will follow A3 towards Hannover, which becomes A2, which you follow until Dortmund. Then you follow A1 towards Bremen, and the control city will sooner or later become Hamburg, then Lübeck, and ultimately Puttgarden, where you get on the ferry to Denmark.

A little tip; many Americans drive in the left lane for no apparent reason. Don't do that in Europe, it will not be appreciated. Always pass on the left, never on the right, unless you're in a traffic jam.

It's not that hard to bypass the Ruhr region.

First of all, you will enter Germany on A40 towards Duisburg, then you will follow A3 towards Hannover, which becomes A2, which you follow until Dortmund. Then you follow A1 towards Bremen, and the control city will sooner or later become Hamburg, then Lübeck, and ultimately Puttgarden, where you get on the ferry to Denmark.

A little tip; many Americans drive in the left lane for no apparent reason. Don't do that in Europe, it will not be appreciated. Always pass on the left, never on the right, unless you're in a traffic jam.

Thanks for the tips! Unlike most Americans I drive right, pass left. The state I grew up in (Kentucky) taught us that from day 1 behind the wheel. I believe Californians are the worst at driving left and passing right :(

Also driving in the left lane for no reason in the U.S. is illegal in some states such as Pennsylvania etc..... signs are posted.

Are the E roads yet posted on signs in the Asian countries in which the system was expanded a decade ago? Specifically each of these countries:
Georgia
Azerbaijan
Armenia
Russia
Uzbekistan
Turkmenistan
Tajikistan
Kyrgyzstan
Kazakhstan

Would a traveler be able to follow E routes in those countries?

I doubt it, many signs are still from the Soviet era, and I suspect that if E-numbers are signed, it is mainly on the newer signs, which are not the overwhelming majority in those countries so to speak...

Are the E roads yet posted on signs in the Asian countries in which the system was expanded a decade ago? Specifically each of these countries:
Georgia
Azerbaijan
Armenia
Russia
Uzbekistan
Turkmenistan
Tajikistan
Kyrgyzstan
Kazakhstan

Would a traveler be able to follow E routes in those countries?

There is somewhere on SSC a photo of a Georgian sign with E60 in it.

I doubt it, many signs are still from the Soviet era, and I suspect that if E-numbers are signed, it is mainly on the newer signs, which are not the overwhelming majority in those countries so to speak...

Of course, they're not marked in the UK either....

^^ I hope they never are, either. I see little point in them, from a UK context.

^^ I hope they never are, either. I see little point in them, from a UK context.

Oh, I quite agree (not that it's any of my business). Just pointing out that it's not only remote ex-Soviet countries on the steppes of Central Asia that are ignoring the system.

Does anyone outside Belgium and Scandinavia care about them?

There is somewhere on SSC a photo of a Georgian sign with E60 in it.
Thanks. Georgia also applied for a couple E road extensions in the past decade.

As for the other Asian countries, with ChrisZ's guess in mind, which ones have begun to post E roads on their major highways?

I was in Denmark some weeks ago and found it strange that some motorways do not have any national numbering, only the E one.

There is an administrative M-numbering in Denmark which is supposedly used on the kilometer markers (I never noticed it) but not on the main signage.

I was in Denmark some weeks ago and found it strange that some motorways do not have any national numbering, only the E one.

Same in Belgium and Sweden too. I think Sweden and Denmark should introduce A- or M-numbers at the motorways.

Same in Belgium and Sweden too. I think Sweden and Denmark should introduce A- or M-numbers at the motorways.Why? Everyone calls them by the E numbers anyway.

A quick post as i am running out the door. Farthest East E number route? I remember a while back trying to trace one into KZ. Whats the eastern most city where an E number ends?

E40 in Ridder, Kazakhstan I think.

The E127 gets a little bit further east, ending at Maikapshagai

Same in Belgium and Sweden too. I think Sweden and Denmark should introduce A- or M-numbers at the motorways.

Denmark could do this. Belgium should do this, since they are already inconsistens in their signing (E-routes are only signed when they are motorways.) For Sweden and Norway there isn't enough consistent motorways i think since the main routes switches from motorway to highway, they could however switch to national routes as Finland have, not a big fan of double-numbers tough so if we are to use E-numbers it looks more clean to avoid national routes on top of them. Hopefully they would cooperate to keep the road numbers across the border like now, that is the advantage of E-number.

Denmark could do this. Belgium should do this, since they are already inconsistens in their signing (E-routes are only signed when they are motorways.) For Sweden and Norway there isn't enough consistent motorways i think since the main routes switches from motorway to highway, they could however switch to national routes as Finland have, not a big fan of double-numbers tough so if we are to use E-numbers it looks more clean to avoid national routes on top of them. Hopefully they would cooperate to keep the road numbers across the border like now, that is the advantage of E-number.

If Denmark should do it, also Sweden should do it. I don't know about Norway, they have less motorways than Denmark and Sweden. But in Sweden, the motorway network are growing up and it's time to use A- or M-numbers on them.

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 (http://maps.google.nl/maps?t=h&hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=70.457754,24.737498&spn=1.332364,4.938354&z=8&layer=c&cbll=70.457754,24.737498&panoid=2iHEYr1zIJFHrmqdXxveRA&cbp=12,265.49,,0,10.41) to a 16-lane motorway (http://maps.google.nl/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Ridderkerk&aq=&sll=70.457754,24.737498&sspn=1.332364,4.938354&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Ridderkerk,+South+Holland&ll=51.86383,4.588051&spn=0.019108,0.038581&t=h&z=15&layer=c&cbll=51.86383,4.588051&panoid=thqVhxZLw5_H1cooX_yZmg&cbp=12,313.71,,0,-1.01).

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 (http://maps.google.nl/maps?t=h&hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=70.457754,24.737498&spn=1.332364,4.938354&z=8&layer=c&cbll=70.457754,24.737498&panoid=2iHEYr1zIJFHrmqdXxveRA&cbp=12,265.49,,0,10.41) to a 16-lane motorway (http://maps.google.nl/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Ridderkerk&aq=&sll=70.457754,24.737498&sspn=1.332364,4.938354&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Ridderkerk,+South+Holland&ll=51.86383,4.588051&spn=0.019108,0.038581&t=h&z=15&layer=c&cbll=51.86383,4.588051&panoid=thqVhxZLw5_H1cooX_yZmg&cbp=12,313.71,,0,-1.01).Not to forget, an E-route doesn't even have to be a road at all.... It can also be a ferry :)

it can also be nothing, as there may be not any ferry between the two parts of an E-road.

E-roads would have been a good thing, if only they were coherent and logical (what's the point of an E25 The Netherlands-Switzerland-Corsica-Sardinia-Sicily?).

If Denmark should do it, also Sweden should do it. I don't know about Norway, they have less motorways than Denmark and Sweden. But in Sweden, the motorway network are growing up and it's time to use A- or M-numbers on them.

It's not a motorway network, just some motorways here and there. What time will all the major cities of Sweden be connected by motorways. Not anytime soon that's for sure, there's no reason they have to either. Therefor it would be better to have consistent roadnumbers, for example route 1 could run Gothenburg - Borås - Stockholm without having to switch name 2 times since there is no motorway in the middle. By removing E-numbers you would also avoid having double route number in long corridors, upto tripple or 4-times E-road in beltways, unlogical routes that follows with the numbering.

It's not a motorway network, just some motorways here and there. What time will all the major cities of Sweden be connected by motorways. Not anytime soon that's for sure

When Dållbo - Hester on Rv 40 is finished there will be a 40km motorway gap between Stockholm and Göteborg with the gap being 2+1 non-grade separated.

The gap between Malmö - Gävle is 31km grade separated 2+1.

Thus, I think not anytime soon is a debatable statement.

It's not a motorway network, just some motorways here and there. What time will all the major cities of Sweden be connected by motorways. Not anytime soon that's for sure, there's no reason they have to either. Therefor it would be better to have consistent roadnumbers, for example route 1 could run Gothenburg - Borås - Stockholm without having to switch name 2 times since there is no motorway in the middle. By removing E-numbers you would also avoid having double route number in long corridors, upto tripple or 4-times E-road in beltways, unlogical routes that follows with the numbering.

When Dållbo - Hester on Rv 40 is finished there will be a 40km motorway gap between Stockholm and Göteborg with the gap being 2+1 non-grade separated.

The gap between Malmö - Gävle is 31km grade separated 2+1.

Thus, I think not anytime soon is a debatable statement.

In the past it was just some motorways here and there in Sweden. Now it is a motorway network. So it's time to use A- or M-numbers in Sweden too. The "gap" between Malmö - Gävle is 31km grade separated 2+1 is not a real gap. It's a 2+1 semi motorway or expressway. And that part is working like a part of the Swedish motorway network. The Swedish motorways was in the past built like some motorways here and there, but it's not like that now. The motorways are built together to a network. So that's a reason why they should use A- or M-numbers in Sweden too. 2+1 semi motorways can have A- or M-numbers too. If Denmark introduce A- or M-numbers at the motorways, they should do the same in Sweden too.

But I don’t think they never introduce A- or M-numbers at the signs in Sweden, Denmark or Belgium. People are used to the E-numbers in all that 3 countries.

Assuming that your exemplary E6 is the fastest and most logical route between points A and B, why bother marking road classes? The motorists are supposed to use the route anyway, even if it switches a lot between different road classes.

I'd also point out that road numbers are also supposed to be navigation cues, not just labels on map. It is a bit easier to follow just a single, unchanging identifier.

From now, I will use the European number instead of the national number. So the A-23, which bypasses my hometown, becomes E07 in my map.

I agree with Uppsala. The E4 between Stockholm and Helsingborg has a 30 km gap that is essentially an expressway (it's grade seperated and with a 100km/h speedlimit). It works well, atleast for Swedish standards. IMO the E4 is a motorway all the way between Gävle and Helsingborg (723km according to Google maps).

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.

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. :)

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

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 (http://maps.google.nl/maps?t=h&hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=70.457754,24.737498&spn=1.332364,4.938354&z=8&layer=c&cbll=70.457754,24.737498&panoid=2iHEYr1zIJFHrmqdXxveRA&cbp=12,265.49,,0,10.41) to a 16-lane motorway (http://maps.google.nl/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Ridderkerk&aq=&sll=70.457754,24.737498&sspn=1.332364,4.938354&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Ridderkerk,+South+Holland&ll=51.86383,4.588051&spn=0.019108,0.038581&t=h&z=15&layer=c&cbll=51.86383,4.588051&panoid=thqVhxZLw5_H1cooX_yZmg&cbp=12,313.71,,0,-1.01).

No, from a dirt road to a 16 lane motorway :lol:. The road of this photo (http://www.panoramio.com/photo/3794276) is the E60 in Tajikistan.

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?

Of course: Untitled (http://v21.lscache3.c.bigcache.googleapis.com/static.panoramio.com/photos/original/44885623.jpg). With an Asian designation!

^^ that sign is BIG :eek:

Nobody uses E numbers in Germany.

^^ that sign is BIG :eek:

But the road numbers are not.

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.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0c/Bundesautobahn_57.jpg

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.

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

^ Slovenia.

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.

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.

^^ Thanks! :)

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

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/36/Transport-dush-khorog.jpg

^^
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.

Where's that, Tajikistan?

^^
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.

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.

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

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?

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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_route_E25). No one would go from The Netherlands to Sicily via Corsica and Sardinia, using three ferries and running on non-motorway roads.

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

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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_route_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.

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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_route_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:

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 (http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl=nl&msa=0&msid=215987084874799868109.00049027f3ce1b7229cb5&z=4)
E27-55 odd (http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl=nl&msa=0&msid=215987084874799868109.000490285beb3d76d861c&ll=54.007769,15.205078&spn=37.291777,79.013672&z=4)
E30-E58 even (http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl=nl&msa=0&msid=215987084874799868109.000490153d0863d9e7e40&z=5)
E60-98 even (http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl=nl&msa=0&msid=215987084874799868109.000490240678d23f02695&ll=42.747012,9.711914&spn=22.97835,39.506836&z=5)

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

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

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/36/Transport-dush-khorog.jpg

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

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.

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 :D.

^^
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.

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).

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 want a Euroroute through Huesca!!! :bleep:

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).

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....

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.

^^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.

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.

Rerouting E roads around places/between places doesn't involve the UNECE and modifying the AGR - so Norways' E6 move to Rv3, France's move of the E21 to be via the A39 or moving an E road onto a city's ring road wouldn't require changing the AGR at all. Likewise, I don't think that something like the Oresund bridge would need informing UNECE and adjusting the AGR, though as a sea gap turning into a road, it may have done. Certainly cross-border realignments that don't change the itinerary wouldn't.

However, if Spain extends the E07 to Valencia, they have to tell UNECE to make it an official E road, even though it affects no other countries. Ditto France and the E7 along the A65. While not de jure E roads, I'd argue that these extensions of the E7 are de facto E roads, due to the signage (and you have other E roads that are de jure but not de facto, like the ones in the UK).

France a spur or two (E9 along the Autoroute and V.E. part of it's former route south of Toulouse - despite the V.E. being renumbered and the non-V.E. bits having their E9 signs removed), overruns (E606 north of Anglomene, E7 north of Pau) and even a duplicate (E401 from St Quentin south on the A16) signed. Not to mention that they have been fairly slow wrt removing old signs on the A6/A7 in Lyon.

Sounds sensible. Which then means that the proposed rerouting of the E6 in Norway (source: Norwegian wiki (http://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riksvei_3)) is is question of domestic delays more than anything else. Anybody from Norway with a status update on that point?

Actually, looking at the itinerary in the AGR agreement, it seems that they will have to modify it, as it won't go via Lillehammer anymore. However they'd want to extend the E136 to the new E6 (probably along the old E6), so would have to send a letter to the AGR about it. If you look at Norway/Sweden's E16 application to modify the E16's route (extend it across Sweden) then you'd realise that this is really easy to do, and the changes would get made at the next meeting.

Given that the E16 rerouting has been ratified, but it's not signed yet, I'd say that domestic things like resigning routes is the delaying factor (though if the AGR meeting is every April, that makes submitting a route change at this point a long wait). Submitting something controversial, like a number that is out of place would make it hard to get it through (though a lot of the recent submissions have been renumbering active E roads to be correctly numbered, per the rules), but other than that, they tend to rubber stamp proposals.

Sounds sensible. Which then means that the proposed rerouting of the E6 in Norway (source: Norwegian wiki (http://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riksvei_3)) is is question of domestic delays more than anything else. Anybody from Norway with a status update on that point?

Don't hold your breath. Not in the picture today.

According to the latest documents, they want to develop Rv3 only as an alternative to the current E6, + they want to make better connections to Rv2 and Rv20 to the south, making an alternate way to Sweden for mid-Norway that doesn't pass Oslo.

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.

There has never been any real attempt to get E6 rerouted.

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

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?

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

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?

E6 has more traffic, and serves a larger area with some importants cities, such as Ålesund. Also, a lot of E6 will be upgraded in the coming years.

Plus poltics, of course. It was a lot of fuzz when the main route was established, from cities in both the two valleys Gudbrandsdalen (E6) and Østerdalen (Rv3).

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...

I can surely appreciate that backbone argument, but I'm not sure whether I would make this very choice on the route between Oslo and Trondheim. Essentially, you'd have to weigh the advantage of serving towns like Lillehammer and a cross-country connection to Alesund against a quicker route to or from Trondheim and a large part of the area North of that. In doing so, you obviously need to take into account that routes to the very far North are likely to run via Sweden. The importance of Trondheim (third city of the country) alone is larger the importance of the area benefiting from the E6 detour. The fact that E6 wll be expanded in the next few years is probably the result of the route alignment as selected, not an argument for the current alignment in itself.

But well, that's politics. Something that I don't have to bother with when working out how I would have done the E-grid, but for the rest a reality that cannot be avoided. Not in Norway, not elsewhere (ever looked at the E22 in the Netherlands?). Good signposting at the E6-Rv3 intersection then seems the best result achievable...

The situation at Tysfjord probably relates to the fact that Rv827 only opened in its current form in 1992. And again, either nobody bothered to seek the change or there may have been local opposition to the change (loss of business along the old route).

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...

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.

The E16 beginns in Belfast N. Ireland where it's cut off by the Irish Sea then continues to Edinburgh and Norway, but there is a 700km of North Sea inbetween.

There are no ferrys awailable on any of these connecting points, so I believe noone has ever travelled the E16 all the way, so why do we need such a road ?

In Brittain there are no E-roads at all and they probably get along well anyway.

In Sweden there is the E4 but it only covers swedish territory so I don't see a reason why it should be called an E-road.

Anymore fantasy routes outthere ?

The European roads are basically meant to make a grid, not a set of contiguous routes.

The E4 extends to Finland for one kilometre. The numbering dates back to the Nordic countries not being satisfied with the first proposed numbering system in 1983. Norway, Sweden and Finland withdrew their support to the ADR agreement, and made their own proposal with a number of changes. That was accepted in 1991 after which those countries begun deploying the current system replacing the old one.

There is no rule that E road should cross a border. Several A Class roads are internal to a single country: E03, E24, E26, E32, E37, E51, E63, E64, E69, E72, E76, E78, E84, E86, E88, E92, E94, and E96, at least.

Anymore fantasy routes outthere ?

Most of them :D

The European roads are basically meant to make a grid, not a set of contiguous routes.

The E4 extends to Finland for one kilometre. The numbering dates back to the Nordic countries not being satisfied with the first proposed numbering system in 1983. Norway, Sweden and Finland withdrew their support to the ADR agreement, and made their own proposal with a number of changes. That was accepted in 1991 after which those countries begun deploying the current system replacing the old one.

There is no rule that E road should cross a border. Several A Class roads are internal to a single country: E03, E24, E26, E32, E37, E51, E63, E64, E69, E72, E76, E78, E84, E86, E88, E92, E94, and E96, at least.

And E33 in Italy, now E31 (There's another E31 in Germany & Netherlands), but I still call it E33.

There are indeed E31 signs on the Parma-La Spezia autostrada, which is odd because everywhere in the internet is still considered E33... why has it been renamed, considering that another E31 was already present?

The European roads are basically meant to make a grid, not a set of contiguous routes.

The E4 extends to Finland for one kilometre.

I remember that the E4 used to cover the route Helsinki-Lisbon (1980ies ?)via Haparanda. That is what I call pure imagination e-road.


They later renamed it to E47 from Helsingör and southwards.

Actually the E47 starts in Helsingborg, but exactly where? must be the shortest E-road in one country. I really think it beginns in the water.

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 ?

There are indeed E31 signs on the Parma-La Spezia autostrada, which is odd because everywhere in the internet is still considered E33... why has it been renamed, considering that another E31 was already present?
May be related to the jump of 2 as described on http://sites.google.com/site/roadnumberingsystems/home/continents-and-regions/europe (see under history). In other words, the Italians simply started to use the number E31 which was assigned to Parma - La Spezia and never adopted the jump that followed. Well, that's Italy.

As to E-routes not crossing borders, I don't care. The rationale behind E-numbers is that they are routes of European importance. And the E4, as main North-South route of Sweden, would clearly qualify as such. 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.

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 ?

In Malmö or in general?

On the Malmö ring road, the leg between junctions Petersborg and Kronetorp Norra is a multiplex of E6, E20, and E22.

Close to Helsingborg, the leg Helsingborg Södra to Kropp is a multiplex of E4, E6, and E20.

On the Danish side, there is a multiplex of E20, E47, and E55 to the southwest of Copenhagen.

May be related to the jump of 2 as described on http://sites.google.com/site/roadnumberingsystems/home/continents-and-regions/europe (see under history). In other words, the Italians simply started to use the number E31 which was assigned to Parma - La Spezia and never adopted the jump that followed. Well, that's Italy.

As to E-routes not crossing borders, I don't care. The rationale behind E-numbers is that they are routes of European importance. And the E4, as main North-South route of Sweden, would clearly qualify as such. 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.

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:

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.

=-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.

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

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):
https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-Xe32FFN-tCs/Teu03tQwcpI/AAAAAAAAI24/4gfBAj6LIpA/s800/100_4302.JPG

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...

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/dg1/viewer.htm?Layers=0000010000000110000000001001&ActiveLayer=13&title=Le réseau trans-européen Zoom in on Liège.)

E14? Stjørdal - Sundsvall.

4 Euroroads combined (Liège):


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...

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.

E14? Stjørdal - Sundsvall.



No. Malmö-Ystad.

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 (http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=37.701445,15.166283&spn=0.024142,0.038581&z=15&layer=c&cbll=37.701339,15.166316&panoid=VtO9CdgfvaUb--EOdDA-Vg&cbp=12,358.48,,0,0).

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 ...

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.

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.

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?

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...

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.

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.
E14? Stjørdal - Sundsvall.
...

No. Malmö-Ystad.

The current E14 used to be called E75, at least between (Trondheim) Stjørdal and Sundsvall.
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....
http://www.vegvesen.no/Vegprosjekter/ferjefriE39/_image/204343.png

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.

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

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. ;)