E-numbering

[-Pino-]

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.

[mlm]

Originally Posted by ChrisZwolle

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).

[Sponsor]

Originally Posted by christos-greece

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.

[IceCheese]

Originally Posted by mlm

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.

[RawLee]

[Ingenioren]

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)

image hosted on flickr


image hosted on flickr


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 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...



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

[Verso]

Originally Posted by mlm

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).

Originally Posted by IceCheese

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.

[Ingenioren]

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....

[ChrisZwolle]

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

[ElviS77]

Originally Posted by ChrisZwolle

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

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

[sotonsi]

Originally Posted by -Pino-

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

All 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).

[wdw35]

Originally Posted by ChrisZwolle

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

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...

[Verso]

^ You want another motorway between A23 and A22?

[Qwert]

Originally Posted by Verso

^ You want another motorway between A23 and A22?

Something like A22.5

[wdw35]

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

[LMB]

Originally Posted by ChrisZwolle

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.

[LMB]

Originally Posted by wdw35

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.

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.

[christos-greece]

Originally Posted by Sponsor

Why not? E65 comes across few countries (also both Poland and Greece). That's the same road.

Yes, i know; as Chris explained to me... i didnt knew then

[wdw35]

Originally Posted by LMB

Less swearing, more thinking.

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.

[Verso]

Originally Posted by LMB

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. The most ridiculous case in Slovenia is E59 from Maribor towards Zagreb, where it's in blue on yellow signs. 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.