daily menu » rate the banner | guess the city | one on oneforums map | privacy policy | DMCA | news magazine | posting guidelines

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > Infrastructure and Mobility Forums > Highways & Autobahns

Highways & Autobahns All about automobility



Global Announcement

As a general reminder, please respect others and respect copyrights. Go here to familiarize yourself with our posting policy.


Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old December 24th, 2015, 11:11 AM   #2681
ChrisZwolle
Road user
 
ChrisZwolle's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Zwolle
Posts: 43,570
Likes (Received): 19358

Oh this is nothing compared to discussions American road enthusiasts can have about road numbers
__________________

my clinched highways / travel mapping • highway photography @ Flickr and Youtube

riiga, Penn's Woods liked this post
ChrisZwolle está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old December 25th, 2015, 10:21 AM   #2682
hammersklavier
Feral
 
hammersklavier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 597
Likes (Received): 423

Quote:
Originally Posted by sotonsi View Post
MattiG is rather extreme in his views, but he's right - the E Road system, as it stands, is pretty pointless, and its benefit of them is minimal.
It wasn't his view that ticked me off -- it was that it was obvious he didn't read a word of my last post. How can you argue with somebody who won't listen?
Quote:
If Sweden (and Norway) cared about improving international travel, then the Tornio-Stockholm-Helsingborg road would be E55. Oh, and the E6 would also be numbered better. Either that, or they would have been adamant not to change their other roads to the new system.

The E4 and E6 are just one of many silly foibles that make the system useless - the strict grid makes many routes silly (eg zig-zagging).
See, I'm still not entirely sold that the system as-is is useless -- especially if (as has already been suggested) the best comparison is with U.S. Highways.

I honestly don't think there's very much if any rhyme or reason to U.S. Highways. In my region alone we have U.S. 1, 6, 9, 11, 13, 15, 22, 30, 40, 202, 322, and 422 that I can think of. Other than 22, 322, and 422, can you discern a pattern? And that's without considering U.S. highways that got converted to state highways -- PA 309 and 611, for example: if you wanted to say that 309 was a spur of US 9, you would have to explain away the fact that US 9 does not, in fact, enter PA (it runs along the Jersey Shore) -- or 309 leave it.

One of the states in my region generally doesn't apply Interstate shields to its highest-grade freeways, for some unfathomable reason. (That would be New Jersey -- the NJ Turnpike has no signed interstate south of its interchange with the PA Turnpike; the Atlantic City and Garden State expressways have no signed shield at all, even though one has a very intuitive Interstate extension, and the other, a somewhat less intuitive one.)

I think I have a fair idea of what road numbering chaos looks like.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TrojaA View Post
I have to admit, that in general I really like the idea of the E-Roads, but the implementation is rubbish for most countries. It works for Norway, Sweden and Denmark somehow, but in central/western Europe the motorways aren't following the grid-system. This results in these totally non-sense fragmentation of one motorway-stretch into several E-Routes.
The Ohio Turnpike carries three Interstate shields. The New Jersey Turnpike does not even carry an Interstate shield its whole length. The Indiana Toll Road carries two shields -- its whole length! The Pennsylvania Turnpike has historically carried two shields, and once the I-95 reroute is complete, it's gonna get a third one. The vast majority of the Oklahoma Turnpike system doesn't even carry an Interstate shield.

A lot of the highways that were either already complete or under construction at the time the Interstates were designated got butchered -- if they got a designation at all. What you're asking for is a myth. No matter how you slice it, major intrastate highways will get multiple designations as they overlap with different interstate trade routes.
Quote:
Still the system could work, if all the E-Numbers were rerouted. However then a new scheme is necessary and all signs need to be changed. (Less problem for countries like Germany, where nearly no sign apart from most confirmation signs)
The most intuitive scheme would make the major trade routes quite visible. This seems to be the biggest issue the current system has: I'd say the Paris-Berlin-Warsaw-east would be northern Europe's primary east-west trade axis. So why doesn't it have its own E-number?

I agree the current system suffers from applying an ill-fitting grid (the net looks more like a bunch of spiderwebs interwoven with each other). But that doesn't diminish its utility. If you want to go from Paris e.g. Vienna, what would be easier? Having to trace the route across the vagaries of France's autoroutes and the various Autobahnen? Or having in your mind one major route number (seeing as Paris-Vienna-Istanbul is another one of Europe's main trade routes)?
Quote:
On the other hand I don't find the E-Routes very useful at the moment. In the EU alone, each member is independent and so it's more like an U.S. citizen crossing the Canadian border, than crossing the state border of Maryland and Pennsylvania.
So I never struggeled with local motorway numbering, because I've never hold the thought in my mind, that there's a continuous European motorway network. Not only the numbering will change if you cross a inner European border, but also the design of the signs, the language (in most cases) and road surfacing marking are also totally different. So there's not even a visual consistency.
Umm if I'm reading the concept of open borders correctly, crossing e.g. the border between Austria and Italy is exactly like crossing the border between e.g. Missouri and Kansas.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road_s...markierung.png[/QUOTE]
Clearly someone has never driven in New Jersey.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nils de Gothia View Post
I don´t like the "new" E-Road numbering system. Supposedly logic, but so theoretic that no one cares about it. Road numbers should follow natural routes. I don´t like the Interstate numbering either, but it´s smarter than that of the E-Roads. What is the point of a system that gives you information of the type " oh am I driving east-west or north -south? Am I in the northern part of the country or the southern? I´ll check the road number at the next signing, then I´ll be sure" OMG. Useless.
Wayfinding. Individual highways are well and good, but could you imagine the wayfinding had the Interstates never come into existence? Turnpikes had already been built all the way from New York to Chicago at that point, but you would have had to "take the NJ Turnpike to the PA Turnpike to the Ohio Turnpike to the Indiana Toll Road" or something along those lines ... a wayfinding nightmare. Each turnpike reflected its state's primary trade routes, which of course made wayfinding circuitous. Go up by Syracuse or down by Philly? Take your pick, but there certainly wasn't any road straight west at the time.

One of the EU's effects has been continental-level integration, and so a unified wayfinding system (or perhaps two working in tandem, as is so often found between the US Highway network and the Interstates) at that scale is becoming increasingly useful. TEN-T projects can then be tethered to specific trade routes that need upgrading: instead of "Corridor IX" you just give the name of the planned motorway linking the cities along that corridor.
_____________

Wayfinding has to work simultaneously, and successfully, on multiple scales. Much of Europe has now integrated into a unified economic block, and that means that wayfinding at a level appropriate to that block is necessary. The US realized this with its continental-scale economy as early as the Better Roads movement. That still -- obviously -- leaves room for beta-level continental wayfinding or intrastrate wayfinding, but at the alpha level, it isn't adequate to know just how to get to Berlin, München, Kölk, or Frankfurt A.M. from Hamburg. You also have to know how to get to Amsterdam, Copenhagen, Szczecin, Brussels, Paris, Gdansk, and so on. Problems in theory are not the same as problems in execution.

I'm sure that if we worked together we could figure out an intuitive wayfinding system for Europe's motorways, but the only way that'll happen is if we have a concrete understanding of what we're after -- i.e. making it easy to follow the major trade routes that crisscross the continent.
hammersklavier no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 25th, 2015, 12:13 PM   #2683
Mirror's Edge
Free the Nordic people!
 
Mirror's Edge's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: South Coast Scania
Posts: 565
Likes (Received): 2637

E4 east of Helsingborg
__________________

Highway89, riiga, verreme liked this post
Mirror's Edge no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 26th, 2015, 07:42 AM   #2684
Penn's Woods
Deadpan Snarker
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 6,241
Likes (Received): 779

Quote:
Originally Posted by hammersklavier View Post
The problem with this argument is that it can also be applied to U.S. states -- particularly states that were building or had recently completed turnpikes (recall that 'turnpike' was the most common term for limited-access highways in the U.S. prior to the Interstate Highway Act).

For example, consider Ohio. This was the plan for their regional road network in the 1940s:



This is Ohio's current Interstate network:



Note the Ohio Turnpike, in red. Do you know how many Interstate designations that road has? I'll tell you. Three. I-80/I-90 in the west, I-80 as it dips under Cleveland to Akron and Youngstown, and I-76 east of Youngstown. That's about par for the course for the E-numbers on your Dutch and German motorways, as well as for other pre-Interstate highways that got Interstate designations. It means that that particular argument against wider adoption of E-numbers is fundamentally ungrounded, from an American perspective.

Coming back to the thread topic, that's also why Sweden's highway system is so legible. The hierarchy functions as: E-roads for the international links, national highways below. It works in fundamentally the same way as the Interstates and U.S. Highways, and being able to create legible continent-wide networks is one of the relatively few transportation-related things Americans actually excel at.
Not that anyone asked me and not that it's any of my business...

My biggest complaint about Belgium's handling of E- and A-numbers is that the A-system, which has a perfectly nice internal logic, is handled very inconsistently and mostly disregarded. Mostly, but not always, disregarded when an E-route coincides with an A-route, and always marked when an A-route's on its own...unless you can get away with calling it a Ring or treating it as a long ramp (see the A3 inside the Brussels Ring...marked as the E40, which really ought to go around the Ring). Why not just post both? Other countries do it. It seems if you're going to post part of the A10 (for example) - i.e. from Ostend to Jabbeke, you really ought to post the whole thing.

(Giving primacy to E-numbers when the neighboring countries tend to de-emphasize them is also a problem, insofar as it raises the question "why emphasize them?", but I don't think you can blame the Belgians for that.)

I'm not picking on Belgium, of course. One of my favorite countries....

I'm less familiar with Scandinavia.
__________________
I didn't vote for him....

DRIVEN IN BEEN IN:
AL CA CT DE DC FL GA ID IL IN KY ME MD MA MI MN MO MT NH NJ NY NC ND OH OR PA RI SC SD TN UT VT VA WA WV WI WY ---
AB BC MB NB NS ON PE QC SK ---
A B CH D F GB I L NL

TrojaA liked this post
Penn's Woods no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 26th, 2015, 08:00 AM   #2685
Penn's Woods
Deadpan Snarker
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 6,241
Likes (Received): 779

Quote:
Originally Posted by hammersklavier View Post
It wasn't his view that ticked me off -- it was that it was obvious he didn't read a word of my last post. How can you argue with somebody who won't listen?

See, I'm still not entirely sold that the system as-is is useless -- especially if (as has already been suggested) the best comparison is with U.S. Highways.

I honestly don't think there's very much if any rhyme or reason to U.S. Highways. In my region alone we have U.S. 1, 6, 9, 11, 13, 15, 22, 30, 40, 202, 322, and 422 that I can think of. Other than 22, 322, and 422, can you discern a pattern? And that's without considering U.S. highways that got converted to state highways -- PA 309 and 611, for example: if you wanted to say that 309 was a spur of US 9, you would have to explain away the fact that US 9 does not, in fact, enter PA (it runs along the Jersey Shore) -- or 309 leave it.
How are you defining your (and my) region, out of curiosity?

I always assumed the justification (such as it is) for then-US 309 was its crossing 209. Way less abnormal than US 400 or 412....

Quote:
Originally Posted by hammersklavier View Post
One of the states in my region generally doesn't apply Interstate shields to its highest-grade freeways, for some unfathomable reason. (That would be New Jersey -- the NJ Turnpike has no signed interstate south of its interchange with the PA Turnpike; the Atlantic City and Garden State expressways have no signed shield at all, even though one has a very intuitive Interstate extension, and the other, a somewhat less intuitive one.)

I think I have a fair idea of what road numbering chaos looks like.

The Ohio Turnpike carries three Interstate shields. The New Jersey Turnpike does not even carry an Interstate shield its whole length. The Indiana Toll Road carries two shields -- its whole length! The Pennsylvania Turnpike has historically carried two shields, and once the I-95 reroute is complete, it's gonna get a third one. The vast majority of the Oklahoma Turnpike system doesn't even carry an Interstate shield.
The Pennsylvania Turnpike already has three, actually: 70, 76 and 276.
The Indiana Toll Road is I-90 only west of I-94.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hammersklavier View Post
....Wayfinding. Individual highways are well and good, but could you imagine the wayfinding had the Interstates never come into existence? Turnpikes had already been built all the way from New York to Chicago at that point, but you would have had to "take the NJ Turnpike to the PA Turnpike to the Ohio Turnpike to the Indiana Toll Road" or something along those lines ... a wayfinding nightmare. Each turnpike reflected its state's primary trade routes, which of course made wayfinding circuitous. Go up by Syracuse or down by Philly? Take your pick, but there certainly wasn't any road straight west at the time.
That was actually precisely the point of the US Highway system. So that you'd be able to get from Baltimore to Saint Louis, say, using one number and so that Illinois would give appropriate priority to its portion of that route even though it was relatively unimportant to Illinois. (That was a famous example, actually, the historic "National Road," in the 20s, was a nice paved road across Indiana than turned into mud at the Illinois line.

How necessary it is with the Interstates in place is a separate question.

__________________
I didn't vote for him....

DRIVEN IN BEEN IN:
AL CA CT DE DC FL GA ID IL IN KY ME MD MA MI MN MO MT NH NJ NY NC ND OH OR PA RI SC SD TN UT VT VA WA WV WI WY ---
AB BC MB NB NS ON PE QC SK ---
A B CH D F GB I L NL

hammersklavier liked this post
Penn's Woods no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 26th, 2015, 04:40 PM   #2686
sotonsi
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 5,542

Quote:
Originally Posted by Penn's Woods View Post
My biggest complaint about Belgium's handling of E- and A-numbers is that the A-system, which has a perfectly nice internal logic, is handled very inconsistently and mostly disregarded.
I'd argue that that is part of a wider problem of Belgium's poor directional signage! If it had similar directional signage to the Dutch to the north, the Luxembourgish to the southeast, or the French to the south (all having slight differences) then both the internal consistency of the A road network, and the E road network for international traffic, are revealed.


While the nearest US equivalent is US routes, please don't assume that you can use the good things about US routes and apply them to E roads. The routings are much poorer thanks to a rigid grid, a dislike of double-numbering between routes of the same type (eg odd and odd - though there are a few exceptions), numbers relying on roads not built (eg the E19 in the Netherlands was clearly designed to travel on the A4, but because that isn't built south of Rotterdam, it zig zags around southern Holland and provides a silly route). There's no real equivalent of Route 66 - the E67 through the Baltics and some of the routes in Scandinavia (E4, E6, E39 though that's iconic for scenery) are the only E Roads with some sort of iconic status.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hammersklavier View Post
The most intuitive scheme would make the major trade routes quite visible. This seems to be the biggest issue the current system has: I'd say the Paris-Berlin-Warsaw-east would be northern Europe's primary east-west trade axis. So why doesn't it have its own E-number?
Even in the days of the old system, that wasn't one number. The Paris bit is the issue. The E8 (now E30) corridor from London to Moscow is an example of an E road that is sensible and works.


This is a good analysis of the usefulness of E roads
__________________

TrojaA liked this post
sotonsi no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 27th, 2015, 04:56 PM   #2687
hammersklavier
Feral
 
hammersklavier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 597
Likes (Received): 423

Quote:
Originally Posted by Penn's Woods View Post
How are you defining your (and my) region, out of curiosity?

I always assumed the justification (such as it is) for then-US 309 was its crossing 209. Way less abnormal than US 400 or 412....
I was thinking of it as being (roughly) Eagles country Eastern PA, South Jersey, and Delaware.
Quote:
The Pennsylvania Turnpike already has three, actually: 70, 76 and 276.
The Indiana Toll Road is I-90 only west of I-94.
I completely forgot about the I-70 interline! Hah ... Well then, that'll bring the count up to four once the I-95 interchange is completed.

Stuff that in your mouth and smoke it, German A-6!
Quote:
That was actually precisely the point of the US Highway system. So that you'd be able to get from Baltimore to Saint Louis, say, using one number and so that Illinois would give appropriate priority to its portion of that route even though it was relatively unimportant to Illinois. (That was a famous example, actually, the historic "National Road," in the 20s, was a nice paved road across Indiana than turned into mud at the Illinois line.

How necessary it is with the Interstates in place is a separate question.

I've noticed that the U.S. Highways these days form a sort of second-order net: They're the most important roads in places bypassed by the Interstates (like Pennsylvania's northern tier and the Delmarva Peninsula), and often have secondary major-highway status where they duplicate Interstates (such as US 1).

Generally, the hierarchy of highway importance is Interstates > US Highways > state highways > county highways (where they exist). Although, especially in the Northeast, plenty of exceptions exist.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sotonsi View Post
I'd argue that that is part of a wider problem of Belgium's poor directional signage! If it had similar directional signage to the Dutch to the north, the Luxembourgish to the southeast, or the French to the south (all having slight differences) then both the internal consistency of the A road network, and the E road network for international traffic, are revealed.
That seems to be a general problem in Europe. As far as I'm able to tell, European wayfinding seems to rely on control-city heuristics. If I were to apply that to the Interstates, for example, I-70 from Baltimore to Salt Lake would be signed to Baltimore or Columbus in MD, PA, and eastern OH, to Columbus or Indianapolis in western OH and eastern IN, to Indianapolis or St. Louis in IL and western IN, to St. Louis or Kansas City in MO, to Kansas City or Denver in KS and eastern CO, and to Denver or Salt Lake in UT and western CO. Or: in other words, when you're signing long-distance trade routes, such a system will get real cumbersome real fast. If you've just gotten off the highway to get some gas in like Richmond, IN, you're not gonna want to remember whether or not you've passed Indianapolis already -- you're just gonna want to know whether your ultimate destination is east or west of you.

American highways are copiously signed with this type of directional wayfinding. Now I realize that the usual American method would get unduly cumbersome in Europe (the words for "north", "south", "east", and "west" are broadly cognate in Germanic and Romance languages; less so in Celtic, Slavic, Baltic, Finno-Ugric, Turkic, or isolated languages), but it strikes me as odd that there isn't some type of compass symbol that can be used in conjunction with route signs, either as a guide to the road or a confirmation, once you're on it, that you are, indeed, headed in the right direction.
Quote:
While the nearest US equivalent is US routes, please don't assume that you can use the good things about US routes and apply them to E roads. The routings are much poorer thanks to a rigid grid, a dislike of double-numbering between routes of the same type (eg odd and odd - though there are a few exceptions), numbers relying on roads not built (eg the E19 in the Netherlands was clearly designed to travel on the A4, but because that isn't built south of Rotterdam, it zig zags around southern Holland and provides a silly route). There's no real equivalent of Route 66 - the E67 through the Baltics and some of the routes in Scandinavia (E4, E6, E39 though that's iconic for scenery) are the only E Roads with some sort of iconic status.
Keep in mind that (the now long-gone) Route 66 became iconic because of its scenery -- it crossed the Desert Southwest in that in-between era before it became flyover country, after all! No other American road has ever achieved the same iconic status. Not Route 1 (from Maine to Miami and then some), not Route 30 (the Lincoln Highway), and certainly not any of the Interstates.

No, the issue with the E-numbers isn't iconicity. It's that they're not accorded top place in the road-number hierarchy -- they have to compete with internal motorway-grade signage.

I agree the existing system is flawed. I strongly disagree with the usual "flaws" because I can easily find examples of the same in the Interstate and US Highway systems. I think the E-numbers, instead, have three main flaws:

1. Poor wayfinding
2. Lack of hierarchical primacy
3. Ill-fitting grid

Solving the first two problems is a simple problem of implementation: Countries that agree to have E-number roads should have to sign those roads, first, and have those roads be primary highways, second. Otherwise, what is the point of having them?

The second problem is much more structural. A strict grid fits the American West well: most of the continent was subdivided on a mile grid. It doesn't exactly fit the East particularly well, largely because the East was initially subdivided and grew as British colonies. By contrast, Europe's road network is a highly interconnected web of radials -- trade routes that have had established primacy for hundreds, if not thousands, of years.

There are other, more creative ways of solving this problem (for example, using a grid based on eight compass points rather than four). Be that as it may, however, motorways are first and foremost trade routes, and right now, the E-roads are the best available systematization of those trade routes at the continental scale.
Quote:
Even in the days of the old system, that wasn't one number. The Paris bit is the issue. The E8 (now E30) corridor from London to Moscow is an example of an E road that is sensible and works.


This is a good analysis of the usefulness of E roads
__________________

Penn's Woods liked this post
hammersklavier no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 27th, 2015, 06:08 PM   #2688
Penn's Woods
Deadpan Snarker
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 6,241
Likes (Received): 779

Quote:
Originally Posted by hammersklavier View Post
....

I've noticed that the U.S. Highways these days form a sort of second-order net: They're the most important roads in places bypassed by the Interstates (like Pennsylvania's northern tier and the Delmarva Peninsula), and often have secondary major-highway status where they duplicate Interstates (such as US 1).

....

That seems to be a general problem in Europe. As far as I'm able to tell, European wayfinding seems to rely on control-city heuristics. If I were to apply that to the Interstates, for example, I-70 from Baltimore to Salt Lake would be signed to Baltimore or Columbus in MD, PA, and eastern OH, to Columbus or Indianapolis in western OH and eastern IN, to Indianapolis or St. Louis in IL and western IN, to St. Louis or Kansas City in MO, to Kansas City or Denver in KS and eastern CO, and to Denver or Salt Lake in UT and western CO. Or: in other words, when you're signing long-distance trade routes, such a system will get real cumbersome real fast. If you've just gotten off the highway to get some gas in like Richmond, IN, you're not gonna want to remember whether or not you've passed Indianapolis already -- you're just gonna want to know whether your ultimate destination is east or west of you.

American highways are copiously signed with this type of directional wayfinding. Now I realize that the usual American method would get unduly cumbersome in Europe (the words for "north", "south", "east", and "west" are broadly cognate in Germanic and Romance languages; less so in Celtic, Slavic, Baltic, Finno-Ugric, Turkic, or isolated languages), but it strikes me as odd that there isn't some type of compass symbol that can be used in conjunction with route signs, either as a guide to the road or a confirmation, once you're on it, that you are, indeed, headed in the right direction.

....
Very good points. (Although I hesitate to say so on what is purportedly a thread about Sweden.)
__________________
I didn't vote for him....

DRIVEN IN BEEN IN:
AL CA CT DE DC FL GA ID IL IN KY ME MD MA MI MN MO MT NH NJ NY NC ND OH OR PA RI SC SD TN UT VT VA WA WV WI WY ---
AB BC MB NB NS ON PE QC SK ---
A B CH D F GB I L NL
Penn's Woods no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 28th, 2015, 11:53 AM   #2689
Nylund
Motorway fanatic
 
Nylund's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Stockholm
Posts: 11
Likes (Received): 12

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1772 View Post
Never heard about this plan. Does it have any name?
It is simply called "E4-länken". More information could be found here: trafikverket.se/contentassets/75454be0fa4b4bd9ac919a0ce61c1046/forstudie_vag_e4_norrtull_kista.pdf[/url]

Put in www yourself as I cannot post links
__________________
Erst mit Tempo +200km/h fängt's Autofahren an!
Nylund no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 30th, 2015, 01:46 PM   #2690
MattiG
Registered User
 
MattiG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Espoo FI
Posts: 1,791
Likes (Received): 612

Quote:
Originally Posted by hammersklavier View Post

I agree the existing system is flawed. I strongly disagree with the usual "flaws" because I can easily find examples of the same in the Interstate and US Highway systems. I think the E-numbers, instead, have three main flaws:

1. Poor wayfinding
2. Lack of hierarchical primacy
3. Ill-fitting grid

Solving the first two problems is a simple problem of implementation: Countries that agree to have E-number roads should have to sign those roads, first, and have those roads be primary highways, second. Otherwise, what is the point of having them?

The second problem is much more structural. A strict grid fits the American West well: most of the continent was subdivided on a mile grid. It doesn't exactly fit the East particularly well, largely because the East was initially subdivided and grew as British colonies. By contrast, Europe's road network is a highly interconnected web of radials -- trade routes that have had established primacy for hundreds, if not thousands, of years.

There are other, more creative ways of solving this problem (for example, using a grid based on eight compass points rather than four). Be that as it may, however, motorways are first and foremost trade routes, and right now, the E-roads are the best available systematization of those trade routes at the continental scale.
It is good to understand the original mission of the E-routes: A UN-initiated agreement to support the post-war recovery of Europe. The original agreement was about technical standards, and listing the key transport corridors. The first part was completed decades ago: Each country has some sort of modern road standards. The second part was killed by the current system to implement an E-W/N-S grid which is in conflict with both trade routes and the geography.

The agreement was signed in 1950. Since that, every European country has implemented their own national road numbering scheme, and cheap and good maps and navigator devices are available to everyone. Everyone is familiar with the fact that the road number almost always changes at country borders. The map or the navigator shows the next number: no problem.

There are EU-wide initiatives to define the key trade routes, and those ones just ignore the E-roads. The Ten-T network consists of nine corridors. As the picture shows, there is no attempt to create an orthogonal grid:



Let us take the green route from Seville to H/UA border, and map it to the E-road network:

Seville-Madrid E05
- Barcelona E90
- Lyon E15
- Turin E70
- Brescia E64
- Zagreb E70
- Nagykanizsa E65
- Igrici E71
- Hajdúböszörményi E79
- H/UA Border E579

Not a very useful mapping. The same applies to most other corridors. One may ask, where is the real value of system to justify to cost to run it.

What comes to the numbering in Scandinavia, the system is full of anomalies because Sweden and Norway insisted to keep their "good" small numbers. The E4, E6, E8, and E12 are mostly N-S routes, thus violating the basics. E10, E14 and E16 are de facto international to Sweden an Norway only: The sections of E14 and E16 in the UK are nonexistent in the practice. The E18 is ok. The E20 is a funny kludge the make to route Gothenburg-Stockholm to an E-route. The E22 ends in Norrköping even if there is no ferry connection from Norrköping to Venspils.

The E75 has a 1000-km gap between Helsinki and Gdánsk. No ferries. The E63 runs about 700 km to the east of E75 in Finland. They meet in Jyväskylä. It this position, the E63 is northbound and E75 southbound:



The E4 actually is a Sweden-only road. There is a 800-meter section of the street signed as 29/E4 in the town of Tornio of Finland just to fill the gap between the E8 and the Finnish/Swedish border. When Sweden converted their 45 to E45, Finland just ignored the change. The E45 ends at the village of Karesuando at the Finnish/Swedish border. The 1-km gap between the border and the E8 in the Finnish village of Kaaresuvanto is not an E-road, but carries the national number 959 only.



I all cases, the E numbering is an additional hierarchy on top of the national numbering. Thus a source of extra cost. In Sweden, the road numbers grow from south to north, with the exception of the E-roads which grow in the opposite direction. When the grid numbering came into effect, Sweden and Norway had to make a major country-wide numbering reorganization. A heavy cost, but where were the benefits?
__________________

TrojaA liked this post
MattiG no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 1st, 2016, 01:59 PM   #2691
riiga
Registered User
 
riiga's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Linköping
Posts: 441
Likes (Received): 126

Fuel tax increase

Starting today the tax has been increased on petrol with 48 öre per liter and 53 öre per liter for diesel. At the pump this will mean an increase of about 60 öre and 66 öre respectively after VAT has been added on top of the tax.

Converted to Euro, 48/53 öre is ~5 cents, 60 öre is ~6 cents and 66 öre is ~7 cents.

riiga no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 1st, 2016, 02:05 PM   #2692
ChrisZwolle
Road user
 
ChrisZwolle's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Zwolle
Posts: 43,570
Likes (Received): 19358

That's quite an increase, much more than an indexation to the consumer price index (inflation). It's almost 10% increase of excise duty.

Before this tax raise, there was a € 0.15 difference between Sweden and the Netherlands in excise duty on petrol.
ChrisZwolle está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old January 1st, 2016, 02:51 PM   #2693
NordikNerd
Rail & Road traveller
 
NordikNerd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Linköping
Posts: 2,747
Likes (Received): 1407

Quote:
Originally Posted by riiga View Post
Starting today the tax has been increased on petrol with 48 öre per liter and 53 öre per liter for diesel. At the pump this will mean an increase of about 60 öre and 66 öre respectively after VAT has been added on top of the tax.

Converted to Euro, 48/53 öre is ~5 cents, 60 öre is ~6 cents and 66 öre is ~7 cents.

I drive a biogas car. Dec 15th the price of biofuel was 17,69SEK/Kg. I hope they keep that price level, eventhough petrol has become more expensive. Environmentally friendly fuel must be cheaper, otherwise I see no point in buying a biogas vehicle.
NordikNerd no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 5th, 2016, 02:46 PM   #2694
Morsue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Stockholm
Posts: 1,282
Likes (Received): 46

Quote:
Originally Posted by NordikNerd View Post
I drive a biogas car. Dec 15th the price of biofuel was 17,69SEK/Kg. I hope they keep that price level, eventhough petrol has become more expensive. Environmentally friendly fuel must be cheaper, otherwise I see no point in buying a biogas vehicle.
17,69 SEK/kg is quite expensive, you must be getting your CNG from an independent provider.

CNG was not affected by the tax increase, and the price should remain the same. As for now, it seems as though stations where E.ON are providing the gas (OKQ8) have remained at 15,60 SEK/kg, while Aga (Preem/Statoil) have increased from 15,55 to 15,64 SEK/kg.

The price for CNG is quite difficult to analyze, since it depends on the relation between natural gas and biogas. Biogas is more expensive which is why that costs 1-2 SEK/kg more than the 50/50 solution provided by E.ON and Aga. In Germany, if I'm not mistaken, CNG is pure natural gas and so it costs around 1 EUR/kg. In Sweden, account is also taken to the price level of gasoline/diesel so when prices for that go up, so does CNG, and vice versa.
Morsue no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 5th, 2016, 03:48 PM   #2695
NordikNerd
Rail & Road traveller
 
NordikNerd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Linköping
Posts: 2,747
Likes (Received): 1407

Quote:
Originally Posted by Morsue View Post

The price for CNG is quite difficult to analyze, since it depends on the relation between natural gas and biogas. Biogas is more expensive which is why that costs 1-2 SEK/kg more than the 50/50 solution provided by E.ON and Aga. In Germany, if I'm not mistaken, CNG is pure natural gas and so it costs around 1 EUR/kg. In Sweden, account is also taken to the price level of gasoline/diesel so when prices for that go up, so does CNG, and vice versa.
So 100% natural gas means higher fuel consumption compared to the 50/50 biogas/natural gas ?

I actually filled up with the cheap CNG in Germany this summer but I didnt notice any remarkable difference in fuel consumption.

In my city we only have svensk biogas providing biogas not EON or AGA.

In Stockholm, Göteborg and Malmö they have cheaper biogas.
NordikNerd no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 7th, 2016, 09:44 AM   #2696
Morsue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Stockholm
Posts: 1,282
Likes (Received): 46

Quote:
Originally Posted by NordikNerd View Post
So 100% natural gas means higher fuel consumption compared to the 50/50 biogas/natural gas ?

I actually filled up with the cheap CNG in Germany this summer but I didnt notice any remarkable difference in fuel consumption.

In my city we only have svensk biogas providing biogas not EON or AGA.

In Stockholm, Göteborg and Malmö they have cheaper biogas.
No difference in consumption, production cost is higher for biogas.
Morsue no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 8th, 2016, 07:28 PM   #2697
riiga
Registered User
 
riiga's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Linköping
Posts: 441
Likes (Received): 126

130

Found a photo of 130(!) on the motorway back in 1968. This speed limit was only in use in periods during 1968-1970.

(source)
__________________

ChrisZwolle, metasmurf, Kanadzie, SRC_100 liked this post
riiga no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 8th, 2016, 11:17 PM   #2698
Swede
forumer #29
 
Swede's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: sol.III.eu.se.08
Posts: 4,213
Likes (Received): 1662

I wonder how fast you'd have to go in a modern car for it to feel like 130 did in those cars.
__________________
Forumers met so far:
Huopa, Nightsky, Jo, wolkenkrabber, ThisSideofSteinway, jacksom, New Jack City, LeCom, Ellatur, Jan, Dennis, Ace, Bardamu, AtlanticaC5, Ringil, Dysfunctional, stacey, karakhal, ch1le, Hviid, staff, kjetilab, Þróndeimr, queetz, FREKI, sander, Blue Viking, nomels, Mantas, ristov, Rafal_T, khaan, Chilenofuturista, Jonte Myra, safta20, AW, Pas, Jarmo K, IceCheese, Sideshow_Bob, sk, Ingenioren, Ayreonaut, Silver Creations, Hasse78, Svartmetall
Swede no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 8th, 2016, 11:21 PM   #2699
Uppsala
Registered User
 
Uppsala's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Uppsala, S, Europe
Posts: 654
Likes (Received): 53

Quote:
Originally Posted by riiga View Post
Found a photo of 130(!) on the motorway back in 1968. This speed limit was only in use in periods during 1968-1970.

(source)

Most people are driving in 130 on Swedish motorways even if they are only signed 110. Thats because the cars are built for that and also the motorways are built for that, but not signed for that.
Uppsala no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 9th, 2016, 01:56 AM   #2700
Kanadzie
Registered User
 
Kanadzie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 2,371
Likes (Received): 746

Yeah, now. But imagine 130 km/h in a Volvo PV544 or Saab 96, 2-stroke
__________________
100 coups de fouet, si vous n'êtes pas morts de rire !

Swede liked this post
Kanadzie no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Related topics on SkyscraperCity


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 08:19 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us | privacy policy | DMCA policy

tech management by Sysprosium