Hi All,

As some of you might be aware, Australia is slowly converting from the original shield-based route marking system to an alpha-numeric route marking system. A summary of progress in the various states and territories can be found here:
http://www.ozroads.com.au/NationalSystem/alpha.htm

When discussing one of the many botched alpha-numeric signs, I wondered whether any other country has done a similar conversion in the past. perhaps with the wide international knowledge on here, someone might know?

The only wholesale change I'm aware of is Ireland's, and that was from one alphanumeric system to another. I don't know whether any of the ex-Soviet states have renumbered their roads since 1991; Belarus hasn't and I don't think Ukraine has, but I haven't been to any others.

Sweden made considerable changes to its system at the point when it decided to use E routes on maps and road signs. The number used for an E route in Sweden is officially the same as the same road's riksväg number, but the latter is never used on signs etc. Therefore there is no separate RV6, 20 or 45 for example as these numbers are taken by the E6 (Öresund bridge to the Norwegian border), E20 (Gothenburg to Stockholm) and E45 (Gothenburg to Kiruna -- may go further, but Kiruna's as far as I've been). This meant that roads carrying those numbers elsewhere had to be renumbered, but nevertheless there was no wholesale renumbering.

The other wholesale change I remember was the renumbering of the euroroutes themselves....

The Baltic states had a widespread renumbering.

France had a large-scale tweak of the Autoroute numbers (ditched A9x routes, Bx, Cx, Fx and Gx routes) and a large scale renumbering after the massive detrunking programme.

Several US states have recast their entire State Route systems.

I've heard some American states try to avoid duplicating road numbers, so if just the number is quoted there's less chance of mixing 2 roads up.

State routes have been renumbered when US Routes or Interstates with conflicting numbers have been built through the state.

And they still have motorways that change number halfway along: A6/A7 and A71/A75. They don't even have the Scotland excuse.

There's somewhat the Scotland excuse with the A6/A7 - with the A6 being built from Paris, and the A7 being built from Marseilles, and the plan has been for a while to build a western bypass of Lyon and then downgrade the handbrake turn section in the middle of Lyon, which would create a disconnect between the A6 and A7 (not that stops the A22 having a gap of substandardness in Lille).

However the A71/A75 is bizarre (and made even more funny by the A89 making the A71 reaching Clermont almost a useless multiplex). They even opened the southern-most section of A71 and northern-most of A75 at the same time. Even though the A75 was basically N9(A), rather than a toll motorway, they could have chuffing given it the same number. The exit numbers reset as well, which isn't often the case.

There's also this one - A 5km drive, 3 different autoroutes: A11-A844-A82 (google isn't sure whether the A82 is N165, but it's been A82 for a few years). OK, sure, there's the issue of the TOTSO, but there's no other autoroutes met (see OSM). OK, the Nantes Ring Road gets the A/N844 number, but why is the A82 not simply A11? I think this provides insight into the A71/A75 numbering - the A11 is the tolled route, the A82 is a free direct upgrade of the N165. Similar things happen with A10/A63 either side of Bordeaux and the (both tolled) A61/A62 either side of Toulouse. However Clermont doesn't have a ring road.

However, Grenoble doesn't either, and you have the A480-A51 run on - they even share junction numbering - you'd have thought that they'd have renumbered the A480 by now. The A48 and A480 end on each other, though that is a recent development as the A48 was truncated.

You also have things like the A46 and A47 hitting end on, though the plan is to downgrade the ancient A47, after building a parallel A45.

So yes, they didn't do a good job of their renumbering!

Denmark went through a renumbering exercise in the 1980s, which was basically the reverse of the thread title, removing the "A" prefix from route numbers and rationalising quite a few other routes, though I think all the numbers for the main roads stayed the same.

Does anyone on this forum have any memories of that change? i.e. did it take 10+ years for all signs to get changed over with little relics hanging around forever? Were there screw ups with the new shields or rectangles or whatever you want to call them?

I remember my family getting confused near Paris in 1993 due to some renumbering.

The road we were looking for had been renumbered at least twice in a few years, 2 maps we had each had a number, & the signs another.

According to Chris a few N routes have been "detrunked" to departmental level.

A more official description of the Aus alpha-numeric scheme is here -

http://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/Home/Mor ... rSigns.htm

(apologies for the long URL - my first post, and I don't know yet how to make the smaller link).

That web site is at VicRoads, the road management authority for Victoria, but it is representative of the nationwide program.

The M-A-B-C prefix system is clearly influenced by the UK's. This is especially obvious from the usage of prefix 'M' for limited access dual carriageways, since 'freeway' is the common term in Australia rather than 'motorway'.

One major improvement over the UK system is that the prefix may change along a single route, but the route retains its number throughout its length. For example, the route from Melbourne to Philip island (a tourist destination) begins as M420, degrading later to A420, and (on the island) becoming B420. I think this is a really good feature. It avoids the UK situation of having an M5 and an A5 that bear no relation to each other, and the situation of having an M1 and an A1 and multiple pieces of A1(M).

The numbers are derived from a zone system, slightly UK-like. Each state has its own system, so duplicate numbers may exist, but they are unique within a given state. For roads that cross state borders there is continuity, and close to borders there are no duplicates. This is managed through coordination between state roads authorities. It is a pity the scheme does not enforce national uniqueness, but Australia unfortunately has a record of being inexpert at that sort of national cooperation.

My main criticism of the system is that the prefix tries to indicate both route function and build quality. For example Vicroads states: "'M' roads provide a consistent high standard of driving conditions, with divided carriageways, four traffic lanes, sealed shoulders and line marking that is easily visible in all weather conditions. 'M' roads are the primary road links connecting Melbourne and other capital cities and major provincial centres. Examples of 'M' roads are the Princes Freeway (M1) and the Hume Freeway (M31)." The problem is that a route obviously has one function along its length, but its standard may vary. I believe that the prefix (and perhaps it should be a suffix, since the number is the more important component) should strictly represent the build quality. The example referred to previously (M420/A420/B420) does this already, but many routes don't.

Route function or importance could then be indicated by more consistent variation in the number of digits. This practise is already included in the systems, but its emphasis varies: Tasmania's usage is strict and obvious, Victoria's slightly less so. In practise I don't think this is important: a motorist travelling from point A to point B doesn't care whether some long-gone road numberer considered this motorist's origin and destination to be "primary". Both are important to this journey, and the motorist will select his route according to directness, build-quality, safety, etc, not by 'route function'.

In South Australia there is a 'D' prefix in addition to the standard M-A-B-C, indicating a C-type route that does not have a sealed surface, ie it's dirt, gravel, etc.

Implementation of alpha-numeric numbering is complete in Tasmania, complete in Victoria rural (Melbourne metropolitan is deferred), and hardly begun in WA. Other states are in-between.

AFAIK Spain has renumbered a large amount of their routes in recent years.

Hi Mark,

Yes, that's correct - it's a bit of a mess. particularly with the A- prefix being used for autovias and in some other areas also for local routes. Then some of the autovia numbers are the same as the autopista numbers running parallel, whereas others don't. And then there's the radial autopistas from Madrid, roughly following their corresponding autovia, but with an R- prefix.

And then there's junction numbering, but I need a new thread about that...

Cheers
Chris

On 27 September 2012 the conversion to alpha-numeric route numbers in NSW was finally announced. Roads & Maritime Sevrices has released a decent amount of information about the system and is asking for community feedback - have a look at this website for all the details www.rms.nsw.gov.au/roadnumbers

The conversion will start in March 2013 and be completed by the end of the year. Exciting times ahead!

I know that in the grand scheme of things that it doesn't really matter, but it bugs me that the new system in Australia duplicates between states. And would it have been too much for the major inter-city highways to have the single digit numbers instead of random numbers like M31?

In my highly organised world the single digit numbers would be something along the lines of...

A1/M1 Sydney - Melbourne
A2/M2 Sydney - Adalaide
A3/M3 Sydney - Brisbane - Cairnes
A4 Melbourne - Brisbane
A5/M5 Melbourne - Adalaide
A6/M6 Brisbane - Darwin
A7 Port Augusta (A8) - Tennant Creek (A6) (For Adalaide - Darwin)
A8 Adalaide - Perth
A9 Perth - Katherine (A6) (For Darwin)

I would have then clustered the other Axx roads around their single digit parent road. For example, the coastal route between Sydney and Melbourne might be A10, or the coastal route north of Perth the A90.

Oh well, it's too late now! The opportunity has been missed.

There was a definite missed opportunity to reappraise the numbering, for sure. Although I will say that aside from Highway 1, route 31 is probably the most well known highway route number in Australia. Pretty unusual for a culture that rarely refers to route numbers.

The reason the repetition in states occurred is essentially because route numbering is a state matter. Imagine all the counties in England having full control over their own road numbers and only liaising on cross-border routes (and even then NSW aren't fully matching Victoria or Queensland).

In the major cities - e.g. Melbourne, Sydney, Brisbane - the motorways are generally known by their alpha-numeric route number already, e.g. M1, M2 etc., so it would have been hard to justify removing these in favour of a nationwide renumbering. The major interstate routes were numbered similar to the US Interstates or US Routes, rather than in a zonal system which explains why some major interstate highways have seemingly random numbers.

One of the more amusing parts of it all is that we have all states and territories at least in the process of converting to alpha-numerics but WA is not even contemplating it. So much for a national standard.

My view is that the numbering system is not overly relevant, as long as there's a visible basic hierarchy that can be interpreted and that the numbers are clearly shown on maps and signs. As the system grows, the numbering will make less and less sense anyway, same as in the UK and to a lesser extent the shielded routes in the various Australian states.

That's excellent and long-awaited news from NSW. Road enthusiasts in that state have been spying for some years on signage with current-system names on cover-plates, with alpha-numeric signage concealed beneath.

The public-consumption video about the scheme is rather good, all things considered.

On the scheme itself, it is, once again, compatible with the Australia-wide national system but with many state-specific nuances. For example, the A prefix is for 'roads with national significance', which means that there are not many of them. Nor are there many in Victoria, but not for the same reason. All non-A and non-M roads are B's. There appear to be no C's, from the limited exposure I've had so far, and the released mapping gives the impression that minor roads are not included in the scheme (?!).

M, A and B route numbers will all be 2-digit, except for those that continue current numbering or have national compatibility requirements. This is OK, and perhaps makes memorisation easier than 3-digits, but it does once again show up Australia's inability, even now, to achieve nationwide harmonisation! (and not just in the roads arena).

CrazyKnightsFan wrote "My view is that the numbering system is not overly relevant, as long as there's a visible basic hierarchy that can be interpreted and that the numbers are clearly shown on maps and signs. As the system grows, the numbering will make less and less sense anyway, same as in the UK and to a lesser extent the shielded routes in the various Australian states." I'd agree with that: I can nit-pick about many aspects of the numbering in Victoria for example, but at the end of the day it's just a number, almost arbitrary.

That's correct.

RMS is only willing to take responsibility for signing the roads which are under its control, so none of the 'Regional Roads' or other roads under Local Government control are included in the scheme.

The same thing applies in rural Victoria, however the road management arrangements are different in that Vicroads controls a much greater number of roads. Roads which have been handed back to Councils, e.g. C438 have been deleted from the route numbering scheme.

It is a shame because it means that many 'C' route standard roads are not numbered but is an unfortunate reality until such time that road management arrangements are changed. Giving Councils some responsibility for maintaining appropriate route numbering and destination signage has been a complete failure everywhere in Australia - it's hard enough for the state road authorities to get it right, let alone the 100+ local authorities in each state.

I've a feeling that our British cousins would empathise with that statement.