Talk:Aberdeen Western Peripheral Route

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Aberdeen Western Peripheral Route article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Highways: United Kingdom Unassessed Mid‑importance

	Roads portal 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.HighwaysWikipedia:WikiProject HighwaysTemplate:WikiProject HighwaysHighways articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the United Kingdom Roads Task Force.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Scotland: Transport in Scotland Start‑class Mid‑importance

	Scotland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics 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.ScotlandWikipedia:WikiProject ScotlandTemplate:WikiProject ScotlandScotland articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Transport in Scotland.

Warning tags

The article has a healthy number of external links, but they really need to be cited as proper (specific) references for some of the claims made. In particular, the "controversy" section needs to be backed up, and ideally complemented by the arguments "for" the bypass; to some extent made in the section above which discusses congestion, but better presented together in the same section since we have a list of points there. – Kieran T ^(talk) 16:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Local Economy

This section seems to be biased against the AWPR - where does this £2.5 billion estimate come from? Where is the source that states "almost no traffic is attempting to cross the city"? All traffic heading for the North East of Scotland is currently forced to go through the city, surely this is a significant proportion of traffic - particularly as there are no rail links? Indeed- is this section necessary at all, as most of it is reiterated in the controversy section below? Matt-thepie 17:55, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy section unbalanced

The controversy section omits the Green / ecological objections to the road. For reasons I don't understand, it also selectively highlights the prosperity of the residential areas near the road ( furthermore, without adequate referencing ). This needs to be changed.