Highway Data Discussion > Solved Highway data updates

HUN E66

(1/2) > >>

si404:
Hungary have proposed an extension of E66 for next month's meeting of the UNECE Working Party on Road Transport. The thing is that this extension is already in the AGR, as they proposed it, and had it accepted, in 2012!

Hungary thinks the E66 is currently: Fortezza - St. Candido - Spittal - Villach - Klagenfurt - Graz - Veszprém – Székesfehérvár
Hungary wants it as this: Fortezza - St. Candido - Spittal - Villach - Klagenfurt - Graz - Veszprém – Székesfehérvár – Kecskemét – Szolnok
UNECE has it as this currently: Fortezza - St. Candido - Spittal - Villach - Klagenfurt - Graz - Veszprém - Székesfehérvár - Dunaújváros - Kecskemét -Szolnok

Obviously this extension has been in the browser for a long time. However, not only the extension is unsigned on GMSV from last year, but also the new proposal takes a different route at Kecskemét to what we have in the browser (new bypass). They clearly plan on signing it - the reason its unsigned is seemingly that they forgot they had already proposed it!

michih:
The working party is 16-18 October 2019. I hope that there will be a publication about the decision.

michih:
Will there be an info about the decision? I couldn't find anything yet.....

si404:
 They are normally slow to put meeting minutes online.

si404:
The minutes are up!

--- Quote ---22. SC.1 was informed that ECE/TRANS/SC.1/2019/1, the amendment proposal submitted by Hungary to Annex I of the Agreement to extend E66 from Székesfehérvár (Hungary) to Szolnok (Hungary), was withdrawn in light of a similar proposal which was accepted by SC.1 at its 111th session, and which entered into force on 6 December 2013 (per Depositary Notification C.N.562. 2013.TREATIES-XI.B.28).
--- End quote ---

So a total damp squib then. As expected.

----

However, this next paragraph is interesting, but not relevant for anything really.

--- Quote ---23. In light of the ITC 2030 Strategy action of promoting the accession by non-ECE member States to the UN legal instruments, the secretariat drew attention to article 5 of the Agreement. SC.1 discussed the matter, and SC.1 members agreed to consult their capitals on whether it would be appropriate to open the Agreement to accession by non-ECE member States, and to revert on this at the next session.
--- End quote ---
The following ECE countries still haven't ratified the AGR, despite having E roads, but hasn't chased them up (and Central Asia got given E roads after the break-up of the USSR): Austria (signed the agreement), Estonia, Ireland, Kyrgyzstan, Spain, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, UK (signed the agreement), Uzbekistan

The following ECE countries have no E roads (and unsurprisingly they mostly have ignored it): Albania (ratified 2006), Andorra, Canada, Cyprus, Iceland, Israel, Liechtenstein, Malta, Monaco, San Marino, USA

But the Special Committee will now investigate getting other countries to sign up and extend the network there.  :pan:

The following non-ECE countries border ECE countries with E Roads. Those marked with a star have an E road ending their border and are surely the prime target for this expansion:
Afghanistan*, China*, Iran*, Iraq*, Mongolia, Morocco, North Korea, Syria*, Vatican City

For completeness, the following non-ECE countries border ECE countries without E Roads:
Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Mexico, Syria

It would be interesting to know why they didn't just dismiss it as pointless right away. Because there seems no reason for opening up access. Asian Highways cover a lot of the potential expansion options (crossing the border into Turkey and the former USSR), North America has the pan-American Highway and no interest in E roads. Israel doesn't seem bothered by E Roads and Syria wouldn't consider signing a treaty for the purpose of designating a road to Israel. Maybe, just maybe, Iran could have some in it's NW to deal with the Armenian closed borders with Turkey and Azerbaijan issue - but Asian highways cover that.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page