Talk:Dual carriageway

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject UK Roads (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject UK Roads, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of UK roads on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Highways (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Highways, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of highways on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Opening heading[edit]

A few points about UK dual carriageways:
A "dual carriageway" is by definition not a motorway. "Dual carriageway ahead" has a specific meaning and is not inclusive of a motorway (for which different laws apply). After discussion here I will update the article to reflect this.
What is a "grade-separated junction" ? I had previously assumed this was a US thing, but after the recent edits in the UK section I am wondering if they exist in the UK too?Mat-C 01:19, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The UK Highways Agency web site has the answers (not necessarily the correct ones, I admit) to both your points. First, it lists (here) two types of dual carriageways: "motorways", and "all purpose trunk roads".
Second, see the agency's descriptions of numerous road projects, such as "A1 Peterborough to Blyth Grade Separated Junctions". (I would have put a hyphen between 'Grade' and 'Separated', myself.) -- Heron 10:47, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
A motorway is - by definition - a dual carriageway! The term 'dual carriageway' purely applies as a description of having the lanes of traffic in alternate directions separated by a barrier or a strip of land, it doesn't imply anything about the level (A-road/B-road/C-road/Motorway/etc) of the road directly. This is a common error of understanding that grew up when they first started appearing on major roads only. Speed limits which apply for 'dual carriageway only' actually apply for 'dial carriageway of this road classification' only. A good example of this is the very many dual carriageways we now have in towns and cities; you really cannot speed down them at 70mph (cars) /60mph (trucks) no matter what you feel like doing!
'Grade-separated' is the technical term for where the major road and the other roads it joins are 'separated' by a 'grade' (as in 'gradient'). Alternate phrases include 'slip-road to roundabout/junction at higher/lower level', etc. but it is a clearer phrase and much shorter! --VampWillow 10:51, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
A motorway is not "by definition - a dual carriageway!". I refer you yo the A38M in Birmingham which was designed and opened ~1973 with no physical duality of carriageways, relying instead on traffic lights to control what was to be a tidal flow across many of its (I think) 7 lanes. It was a Motorway. The experiment was not a success Fiddle Faddle 23:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Have clarified the points above into article. ps. I agree about the hyphen thing but it seems officially it doesn't exist! --VampWillow 11:00, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Are pedestrians and cyclists permitted on dual carriageways with grade-seperated junctions?

--User:Emanuel 15:51, 28 April 2006

Yes. There are often special lanes for cyclists to allow them to cross the slip roads at right-angles, if they dare. Motorways are the only roads that always exclude peds and cyclists. --Heron 17:18, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Motorways are the only roads where peds and cyclists are excluded by default, they are often excluded from dual carriageways using signage. [1] --TFoxton 20:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Australia[edit]

With Australia can you provide more images of Sydney Motorway Network and the Hume and the Pacific Highways? You currently only show Melbourne! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.168.57.62 (talk) 07:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Switzerland[edit]

There was a short entry regarding Switzerland. It was completely wrong! Hence I removed it. (Many autostrasse are NOT dual carriageway in CH, a few are, but a motorway is called autobahn.) You are welcome to restore a corrected (and verified) entry, but please also remember notability issues - an entry on Germany would be certainly more relevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tang Wenlong (talkcontribs) 00:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Savery Avenue[edit]

Savery Avenue in Massachusetts
First Divided Highway in the U.S.

The historic sign on Savery Avenue in Carver, Massachusetts says "Savery's Avenue / First Divided Highway in America / Presented to the public in 1861 by William Savery". The Carver, Massachusetts page on wikipedia also refers to it. I found a local Massachusetts article on it [2] Is this information solid enough to be included in the Dual Carriageway article? Faolin42 (talk) 16:19, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I went ahead and added the image to the article. Faolin42 (talk) 16:19, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

Dual carriagewayDual roadway — The term "carriageway" is not universally used. The articles name should be renamed to "Dual Roadway". Roadway is more universally used. UrbanNerd (talk) 14:42, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

  • Oppose per WP:TIES/WP:ENGVAR, WP:UCN and WP:OR. As a specific category of road, this one is far more defined in the UK and Commonwealth and usage should follow per WP:TIES/WP:ENGVAR. Although North American divided highways are also covered here this is less of a formal category and more of a description in North American usage. The proposed title is used in neither area and is original research. — AjaxSmack 17:29, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose per AjaxSmack. In the UK the term "dual carriageway" is widely used. In the article American and British English differences, "divided highway" is given as the American equivalent, so "dual roadway" can not be widely used in this context. Cjc13 (talk) 17:49, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Support Very few country's outside of the UK use the term "Carriageway". The term when looked up in the dictionary (if found) states "noun - British ". The term "roadway" is used by countless countries and is less "british centric". Roadway has no biased or preference to either side, so WP:ENGVAR and WP:UCN do not apply and/or work in favour of the proposition. Whereas "carriageway" has an obvious biased towards the british usage. UrbanNerd (talk) 22:52, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
    • "Roadway" in this instance is also original research and not supported by outside sources. — AjaxSmack 04:01, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Support Divided road. The term is indeed prevalent in North America, especially before the term freeway became popular in the fifties, when most were known as either divided highways, or dual highways. No need for two articles to cover the same topic under a different name. There is absolutely no difference besides the term itself. The current title is British centric, which does not fall under WP:ENGVAR, but rather WP:UCN. From a worldwide perspective (and this article covers the worldwide perspective, not UK Dual Carriageways), the current title is not a common name in modern times. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 23:18, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose "Divided highway" already redirects here. "Dual roadway" isn't very common at all. Well, to be honest, I've never heard of it. As for "carriageway" it's more common in the US than you'd think. Imzadi 1979  23:47, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Support or even better strong support a move to divided highway or divided road if we are searching for a term without baggage. The problem here is that for the most part we no longer use carriages on today's roads. Even the the current carriages in the UK don't operate on these roads. So a rename would only clarify what is intended. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:55, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
    • The term "carriageway" is the English term equivalent to the American "lane" (meaning #1). It has nothing to do with driving carriages any more than slip roads have to do with ladies' undergarments. WP:ENGVAR says using British usage is just fine. WP:UCN/WP:OR say don't replace an establish term with one not even in regular usage. — AjaxSmack 04:01, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
      • Actually a lane is a single car wide. A carriageway is a road essentially. Dual carriageways = Dual roads. This is not an issue of British English versus American english, we can use British English without issue. This is a term that has only local (British) significance, but the article has an international scope. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 05:06, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
      • Divided highway is not in regular usage and violates WP:OR. I'd like to see any shred of evidence to support that. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:19, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
        • That's not true at all. It's an established term. Regardless, the use of an article title is not a technical term but a descriptor of the subject. The technical terms differ from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, so a universal term should be used rather than a nation-specific term. A divided highway is a highway that is divided. No place for WP:OR (which applies to content) on this one at all. Not all titles have to be technical or established terms if they are a simple descriptor (ie a highway that is divided, not a "Divided Highway" as a class of roads). - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 18:20, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Support move to divided highway, as that term is more commonly used in North America to refer to these types of roads. Also to note, this article seems a little biased toward the UK. Dough4872 02:05, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
    • If the article is biased toward the UK, it is because, conceptually, the dual carriageway is a distinct category in a way it is not in North America. WP:TIES and WP:ENGVAR support keeping the article where it is. — AjaxSmack 04:01, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Strictly speaking motorways in the UK are a subcategory of dual carriageway ie all motorways are dual carriageways (there were one or two insignificant single carriageway motorways, but I think they have all gone) but not all dual carriageways are motorways. In popular speech though, because "non-motorway dual carriageway" is too much of a mouthful and "dual carriageway" is used instead, this creates the false impression that dual carriageway and motorway are different categories. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.72.129 (talk) 23:51, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
I think a good analogy is the with finger versus thumb: technically a thumb is a finger in the same way that a motorway/freeway is (almost always) a dual carriageway, but in common usage they are thought of as different things rather than one being a subcategory of the other. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.254.132 (talk) 11:03, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
      • It's a distinct category in North America as well, known as a divided highway. Therefore neither of those guidelines support that assertion. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 05:06, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
        • The difference is that in the UK dual carriageways are considered to be distnct from motorways, whereas in America freeways and expressways are considered to be examples of divided highways, so divided highway is less narrowly defined. Since there are separate article for Motorway, Freeway, Expressway, Autobahn, etc., it would be possible to have a separate article for divided highway if necessary. Cjc13 (talk) 15:12, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
          • I think it may be better to split this article, with divided highway covering the entire concept of roads with a median and separate travel lanes in each direction and dual carriageway covering the type of road in the UK. Dough4872 18:12, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment: there is also an article for Single carriageway. In the UK, roads are either single carriageway or dual carriageway or Motorway. Cjc13 (talk) 15:12, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose renaming mostly per WP:engvar (especially WP:Retain), and oppose split. BrEng term is fine as is; it is no less intuitive than divided highway. Similar regulations exist around the world on roads that can be described as dual carriageways. Regulations disctinct from undivided highways (←redirects to single carriageway) arise from the logical use of the arrangement for opposing traffic. The scant legal differences across the pond on top of the universality of the concept make a split an undesirable outcome that is also without the support of polices like WP:Engvar.Synchronism (talk) 07:31, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm pretty certain it wil be split if not renamed. The title is entirely British centric, and that is not what WP:ENGVAR is about. The ony thing ENGVAR supports is keeping the prose in British English. The title of the article falls under WP:UCN - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 16:13, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Well making two nearly identical articles based on a vocabulary difference is ridiculously out of sync with the purpose of ENGVAR, which is intended to diminish and prevent bifurcation of the encyclopedia along dialect lines. The legal diffs really are not different enough to support a split and maintain two unique articles about two unique concepts beacuse really it's one concept. Not sure where your certainty about processs comes from, I'm still of the opinion that such a split is undesirable and would eventually be reconciled by thoughtful consideration of reliable sources which state that the terms are equivalent.Synchronism (talk) 19:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Then it should be established that this article is not just about the legally termed "dual carriageway" in Britain, but about divided roads with opposing directions of travel. As such a more appropriate and universal term should be used. Divided road is simple, makes no reference to a legal "type of road", but is simply a description of the subject. A divided road is a road that is divided. In Britain, divided roads are often classified as a "dual carriageway", though motorways are another type. In North America, they take a variety of forms and may be low traffic boulevards or high speed freeways. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 19:42, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
There is a difference in that at least in the UK "dual carriageway" is a class of road separate from motorways and single carriageways, whereas "divided highway" appears to be a description of several classes of road such as freeways and expressways, which already have articles. Cjc13 (talk) 17:41, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
In that case the information should be split off to the appropriate title, and then they should have a hatnote or two to navigate between them. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 18:16, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Support move to divided roadway. Carriageway in UK-centric, Highway is US-centric. Student7 (talk) 22:39, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
    • I would support a move to that title as that is more neutral. Dough4872 01:41, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Some results from Google. "Divided highway" has 178,000, "Divided carriageway" has 6,700, "Divided road" has 31,000 and "Divided roadway" 33,000. Note that these numbers include double hits like this which defines divided highway and adds what the Brits call it. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Oppose moving. When I did the same search, "divided highway" had 178,000 results, while "dual carriageway" (the correct search term) had 495,000. –Fredddie 01:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose move to "divided road(way)", neutral toward a move to "divided highway". Prefer the current title. Not sure if it adds much or not, but US roadgeeks seem to use "dual carriageway" at least as often as "divided highway", what with "carriageway" being the least ambiguous way of referring to "half a divided highway". —Scott5114 [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 01:48, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes but we're writing for the general public, not roadgeeks. A layman from North America will have no idea what a dual-carriageway is. The goal here is either a universal term that encompasses the subject matter, or splitting the irrelevant world-wide coverage to the appropriate articles (freeway, expressway, etc.). The way I see it we are uneccessarily splitting information that way. The use of sources from multiple juridictions further complicates this already labyrinth like topic.
    A dual carriageway - A class of road in Britain, or synonymous with "a divided high-speed road"?
    An expressway - A road with partial grade-seperation, a technical class of roads, or possibly any major road with partial control of access?
    A highway - A department maintained route, or any route from a trail to a superhighway?
    A carriageway - A type of road in Britain, an historic term for all roads prior to motorized vehicles, or a single road bed?
    A freeway/motorway/autostrada/autobahn - A high speed road with total control of access. Despite each having a unique article, they are all synonymously defined by the OECD as a high-speed road with no cross traffic and divided directions of travel (aka a divided highway, by the legal definition of "highway" as any road whatsoever.
  • Why do we need a dozen articles to explain two or three concepts, based solely on the fact that different countries use a different term? Besides the term by which they are referred to, a single article can cover all concepts relating to a high speed divided road with controlled-access (a freeway or motorway), another can cover a carriageway/dual carriageway (they do not need separate articles. The concept deserves the article, the type of road in Britain belongs in an article like Transportation in Britain or a classes of roads in Britain)
    These articles should be covering concepts, not the legally defined road types by nation. We'd have a hundred articles if every nation did this. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 18:46, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment. Until 4 April 2010, the UK and Ireland sections appeared first in the article, see April 1 version. This reflected that this is primarily a UK term. The article went on to include similar roads in other countries. This version makes more sense then the current version which tries to say that it is the same as a "divided highway" which it is not (it is an example of a divided highway as are freeway, expressway, motorway, etc) and I would support a revision to the order used before April 2010. If necessary an article for "divided highway" could be created. Cjc13 (talk) 11:17, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
    We need less articles, not more. Spreading the information out isn't hepful. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 15:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
    Is an article for "divided highway" needed then? At the moment there are more articles about American roads than UK roads. Cjc13 (talk) 16:22, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
    A single article with a non-biased name is needed. "Carriageway" is not a globally used term, or even widely used outside of the UK. Simply, It needs to be changed. UrbanNerd (talk) 17:00, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
    Roads are roads are roads, in the UK, Malaysia, Canada, France, or America. The terms may vary (a wrench is known as a spanner in the UK, but there isn't a separate article discussing spanners), but the concepts are the same. Roads with no median / central reservation, roads with a median, roads with limited access, and roads with controlled access and grade separation. The multitude of terms used around the world, and the official legal definitions, can be organized into sections, much like this article currently is. A boulevard and a dual carriageway are generally the same thing, but boulevard seems to have much more international recognition. Put a section in on the UK, and explain dual carriageways as a legal type of road. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 17:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
    A boulevard is not the same as a dual carriageway. For a start boulevards are generally urban roads whereas a dual carriageway are generally found outside urban araeas. This illustrates the need for separate articles. Cjc13 (talk) 22:04, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
    So we need a separate article in order to distinguish an urban divided road from a rural divided road? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 01:28, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
    Yes. Just like we have separate articles for urban streets and rural highways. — AjaxSmack 02:53, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
    I believe that is a far more exaggerated example. Are dual carriageways low speed (60km/h) roads, or high speed roads with less access than your typical suburban throughfare? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 03:09, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
    They are often high-speed roads with less access than urban thoroughfares much like expressways. Check out this driving tutorial on "Dual carriageways" that mentions speeds up to 70mph. Dual carriageways feature a variety of access levels. Many of the major dual carriageway A-Roads are controlled access (see this image of the A2). The N6 dual carriageway in Galway (image, recently redesignated a motorway) had fully controlled access with no at-grade intersections. The dual carriageway sections ABC Highway in Barbados has at-grade roundabouts but few other access points. — AjaxSmack 04:21, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────It seems like the exact equivalent to an expressway over here. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 05:52, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Not always that much access control though. I was giving one extreme. Think the high-end divided highways in West Virginia, US 90 in Louisiana from NO to Lafayette. Some access control but grade intersections and traffic lights too. Not all expressways are dual carriageways and certainly not all dual carriageways are expressways. Dual carriageways really are the same as divided highways but with a deeper conceptual weight that is felt more prominently with the higher speed rural version. Thus, though all divided highways are technically dual carriageways, the conceptual framework, only in my opinion of course, is more like in this diagram. — AjaxSmack 02:08, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
This is an interesting way of representing it. What I'm proposing is that instead of titling an article (which currently covers all of those types, save maybe boulevards) after a small facet of the broader subject, that we create a title more encompassing. Obviously the "title" I've slapped on this image is not what I'm proposing, but perhaps it will make the idea more obvious. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 02:29, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Road types2.png
Your "roads divided at the center" is, I think, what I meant by "divided highways". Quite a few boulevards (think Lake Shore Boulevard in Toronto) and a few expressways (e.g., parts of Highway 104 in Nova Scotia) aren't divided at the center. — AjaxSmack 02:58, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
You're right. There are always exceptions to everything (especially with roads. If you can imagine a layout, it's probably been done.). Although the title in this case is North American centric, the concept I'm trying to get across is that we could potentially cover expressways, freeways, dual carriageways, autostrada, autobahn and divided urban arterials all in one article without using a title that is centric to any one particular topic. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 16:17, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose Here in England we call it carriageway. All the signs say it. Látches Lets talk! 20:12, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
    That's the entire reasoning for moving it. "Here in England" not throughout the world. UrbanNerd (talk) 20:17, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
    WP:RETAIN says this is enough to keep the current title. But if more is needed, as a category, this type of road is conceptually stronger in UK/Ireland/Commonwealth than in other countries. — AjaxSmack 03:28, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose any move as per WP:RETAIN. The article has evolved under this title, which is the normal name for such roads in the UK. -- de Facto (talk). 21:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
    So in other words you'd still support forking out the content that has no relevance to the UK? WP:RETAIN says, smack dab in the middle "unless there are reasons for changing it based on strong national ties to the topic". In this case, the article does NOT cover UK Dual carriageways, but divided roads from all countries. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 01:34, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
    No, why fork it? The British English title is inclusive of all such roads mentioned in the article and WP:RETAIN says don't change it unless the content has strong national ties. The content doesn't have strong national ties - the roads, in whatever country, and whatever the local term for them is, are still dual-carriageways in British English. -- de Facto (talk). 07:07, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
    I would argue that the topic has stronger national ties to British/Commonwealth-English-speaking countries. A fork is not needed because the content doesn't warrant it. — AjaxSmack 03:28, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose per WP:ENGVAR, wtf is a dual roadway?! Jeni (talk) 00:01, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Can't find anything there to suggest it shouldn't be applied to titles. Anyway, the Google hits mentioned above satisfy UCN. Thanks :-) Two guidelines satisfied! Jeni (talk) 00:28, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
That assumes those terms are synonymous, which half the opposing arguments on here say is not the case (because they are a unique class of roads in Britain and Ireland). - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 02:29, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Can someone else re-close this debate please, it was already closed by an admin but it was reverted by someone who wasn't getting their own way. Jeni (talk) 02:08, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for not assuming good faith, an always endearing attribute of yours. I actually undid the archival, not the request to move closure. The reason I did that is that I'm still discussing possible ideas with other editors that are beyond the scope of the idea originally proposed by urbannerd. Feel free to close it, but it would only necessitate opening another discussion. In other words, yes, the consensus is established and I'm aware of that. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 03:09, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Floydian, perhaps the "Divided Highway" redirect should be deleted and a new article started. It seems most people who came to the rescue of the proposed name change are from Britain. (no surprise there) They don't seem to realize that nobody uses that term here, nobody. Since they put up such a fuss, it only makes sense to start a new article named "Divided Highway" or something similar. I would contribute to a new article. UrbanNerd (talk) 13:01, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
There are editors from both sides of the ocean here, but the most vocal argument seems to be that they are official road classes in Britain and Ireland. If so the article should cover that. Most references to motorways should go in the motorway article, which should be merged with the freeway article. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 18:11, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
In the UK dual carriageway means nothing more than a highway or road divided down the middle by a central reservation or barrier (grass, kerb/curb, fence or whatever) that separates traffic going in opposite directions. If there is no central barrier it is a single carriageway. The road can be a housing street, a shopping street, a country lane, a major road, a minor road, a trunk road, a motorway or whatever - all that counts is that traffic going in opposite directions is separated by something more than a painted line. -- de Facto (talk). 20:39, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Should Central reservation be merged into here? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 01:37, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
No. There's enough specialized content to warrant an independent article. — AjaxSmack 04:06, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Oppose a split of divided highway. It's an unneeded (POV) content fork. A divided highway is a dual carriageway and vice versa. The issue here is what the title should be. — AjaxSmack 04:06, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
I think the issue here is that each artcle has become an collection of examples of freeways/motorways. I'll plan something out in my sandbox and come back with a proposal at WT:HWY. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 06:33, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Local-express lanes[edit]

The article has been tagged with a 'proposed merge' with Local-express lanes. Personally I don't see the benefit for such a merge as both articles are pretty long already and discuss very different types of road. I have cleaned up their leads to make the distinction clearer. I suggest we leave the articles as they are. PeterEastern (talk) 07:35, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Mild oppose... they are different enough that I prefer them separate. Jason Quinn (talk) 08:45, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
  • It should be merged into Limited-access road. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 10:33, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose or else we'll end up with an article that tries to deal with all types of roadway that has any division of flow by physical separation, and will do so poorly. Previously, collector-distributor lanes were merged into local-express lanes, yet the two concepts are still a bit distinct and that merger should be undone. (C-D lanes are for single interchanges while an L-E setup can run for miles involving crossovers or interchanges that are accessible from both the L and the E lanes...) So anyway, no, we don't need to shoe-horn every instance of a roadway having a division of flow together. Imzadi 1979  20:53, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. While a local-express setup is typically an example of dual carriageways or divided highways, this article discusses the nature of dual carriageways as they relate to single carriageways. The local-express distinction is not really cohesive to this article, and the concept is distinct enough that it need not be merged here. -- LJ  20:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Seems a clear-cut decision then that the proposed merge is not appropriate. I have removed the 'merge' banner and added a reference to Local-express lanes in the lead. PeterEastern (talk) 12:31, 28 July 2011 (UTC)