Talk:A1 (Croatia)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article A1 (Croatia) has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
WikiProject Croatia (Rated GA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon A1 (Croatia) is within the scope of WikiProject Croatia, a collaborative effort to improve the quality and coverage of articles related to Croatia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Highways / Europe  (Rated GA-class, Mid-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.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the European Highways Task Force.

Ploče-Doli section[edit]

This site links to an old map that I recall seeing somewhere before myself, which named southernmost interchanges "Mali Prolog", "Ploče", "Metković". But, nowadays the D425 is planned to end at Mali Prolog where the IC is called Ploče, and the Metković IC is near Kula Norinska. Given all this, is there any further point in including Pelješac in any A1 route plan? It seems way obsolete by now. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 21:45, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Consequently, I moved this out of the article:

  • There is a plan to build the Pelješac Bridge which would be narrower than the motorway standard, with two traffic lanes, and an expressway connector to the Doli interchange on A1. This route is further complicated by the fact that it would also have to pass beneath or around the Walls of Ston and the settlements of Ston and Mali Ston on a narrow isthmus that connects Pelješac to the mainland. Hence, no plans currently exist to actually cross the sea with a four-lane motorway, so it's pretty much WP:OR to talk about something that can't be demonstrated to exist in reality.
  • Any other plans involving crossing into Herzegovina, including the straightforward path through the Neum region, will require some sort of a bilateral treaty with Bosnia and Herzegovina both for the construction as well as the operation of the motorway and the connector roads. Whether it would be a simple crossing north of Neum, or a motorway built through the hinterland near Trebinje as part of the Adriatic-Ionian motorway project - that's all pure futurology for now. Not particularly more futuristic than a full-blown A1 to Dubrovnik, but still, unreferenced and off-topic here.

--Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:52, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

True, Slivno-Neum-Doli is the officially published planned route [1], even though no planning documents beyond that exist for the section. The physical planning map [2] (page 9) gives a good overview of the situation. D425 indeed terminates at Ploče IC, and the following interchange is supposed to be Metković IC (where the A10 terminates), while the interchange closest to Kula Norinska is planned to be Opuzen IC (note: Kula Norinska IC is located on the A10) and the A1 interchange closest to Pelješac Bridge mainland access route is Slivno IC.--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:22, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Some comments[edit]

After reading the article, here are my comments:

  • In terms of coverage, referencing and formatting, the article is generally developed to a high standard. ("High" certainly means GA, in this case.)
  • Some minor copyediting might still be needed; GOCE seems to be already on it.
  • My impression is that the intro is slightly too long. Info on toll plazas in the end of the second paragraph is perhaps unnecessary here. The third paragraph might also be trimmed a bit. (When I say "slightly too long", I don't mean the volume - which is probably about right given the article's size - I mean the relevance.)
  • I don't think that article has too many images - it's their layout that is slightly problematic. If the browser window is not wide enough, images push the "Completed structures summary by sector" table down and leave a big gap in the article.
  • M-d-y dates certainly do not violate WP:MOS here, the editors are free to choose. In my view, the fact that Croatian uses d-m-y format is of marginal relevance.

All in all, things look very good. GA review might raise further points, but presumably nothing major will have been left by then. GregorB (talk) 19:11, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. Since GOCE is (appears to be) about to copyedit the article, I'll try to produce a trimmed-down lead section in my sandbox and move it to the article when the copyedit is done. As far as the images are concerned, I've noticed a 15 cm gap opening up in "Traffic volume section", so if you agree that would be a better layout, I'd try to select one or two images (that may well turn out to be all of them) for each section and place those in the main text similar to the traffic volume chart.--Tomobe03 (talk) 19:20, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes, rearranging the images into paragraph text is the way to go. GregorB (talk) 21:11, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:A1 (Croatia)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Imzadi 1979  10:05, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    The article is good, but there are some minor issues to be fixed, detailed below.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    A few comments though about reference formatting, see below.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    The images are all good, but for future nominations, you'll want to indicate on the file description page for File:Croatia A1 trafficvolume.gif the source of the data used to create the chart.
  7. Overall:
    Placing on hold.
  • "As the route traverses rugged mountainous and coastal terrain the route completed as of 2010 required 351 bridges, viaducts, tunnels and other similar structures, including the two longest tunnels in Croatia and two bridges comprising spans of 200 metres (660 ft) or more." Missing a "the" for proper grammar.
  • "A motorway connecting Zagreb and Split was originally designed in the early 1970s and a public loan was started in order to collect sufficient funds for its construction." missing comma before the "and" because the two sentences could exist separately. Audit the rest of the article for similar compound sentences that are missing commas.
 Done These two are corrected, and the remainder of the article was reviewed for similar issues.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:25, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Notable structures
  • "The tunnels on the A1 motorway that are longer than 1,000 m (3,300 ft) are: the 5,821 m (19,098 ft) long Mala Kapela Tunnel between the Ogulin and Brinje interchanges, ..." and other sentences like it have a problem. the second measurement is acting as a compound adjective. The sentence should read: "The tunnels on the A1 motorway that are longer than 1,000 m (3,300 ft) are: the 5,821-metre (19,098 ft) long Mala Kapela Tunnel between the Ogulin and Brinje interchanges, ..." which can be done by adding |adj=on to the {{convert}} template. Audit the article and fix similar instances.
  • Going along with that specific sentence, I think you should find a way to break the sentence up. Otherwise it is a sea of numbers. It reads like a table converted into a single sentence. I know it was suggested to replace the table in a PR, but this is not a good way to do it. Please find a way to recast the whole paragraph to split the measurements up. You can just state that are <number> of notable <structure type> along the motorway and then proceed to describe them individually. The minimum length criteria isn't necessary.
 Done Revised.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:25, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
  • "After suppression of the Croatian Spring and removal of the Croatian leadership that proposed and adopted the construction plan in 1971, all the work related to the Zagreb–Split motorway were cancelled." "Work" is a singular word, so "were" should be switched to "was".
  • "However, the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) recognized the route as the southernmost part of the Pyhrn route, giving it the designation E59 in 1975." Since the UNECE is never mentioned again, its abbreviation is not needed. Why clunk up the text with it if it's never repeated?
  • "The construction cost for the Bosiljevo 2–Split (Dugopolje interchange) sector of the motorway were originally ..." Cost is a singular item, so "were" should be "was".
 Done Corrected as suggested.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:25, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Exit list
  • For readers not familiar with the area, you should provide a key to the graphic symbols used in the list. Icons like these should never appear without either a key, or text equivalent in the table row. (The latter is preferred in case a browser is set not to display graphics or can't display them.) We do try to minimize the amount of graphics used in the tables. Past FACs on highway articles even asked for ALL graphics to be stripped out, but highway markers are usually so integral to the visual recognition of a roadway they are important enough to include.
  • The rest areas/bridges/tunnels, since they don't have exit numbers, could span into that column as well.
  • The table doesn't need the top row, since that's duplicating the section heading. The colors could/should be removed from the table header as well. The "exit" column should be capitalized.
  • Any chance at getting distance measurements for the bridges/tunnels/rest areas? For the longer items, use a range to indicate the two ends (12.3–14.5 as an example). If you can do that, then the length measurements in the notes are redundant (anyone needing the length can do the simple math to subtract the ends) and these entries could span across the Exit/Name/Destination/Notes columns (which is the current practice for junction lists). Any additional notes should already be in the article text.
  • A recent addition to MOS:RJL now requires a table footer on all junction lists that displays a conversion key for the distances.
  • Sentence fragments shouldn't have periods in the notes column. Two or more such fragments should be joined together by semicolons or broken into separate lines by line breaks
 Done A symbol key is provided. The icons are used as they are accurate representation of signs used on the motorway itself. The footer also includes a km/mi conversion key. The top row was removed, and the colors used in the 2nd row was also removed. Redundant notes to the structures were removed. Punctuation of the sentence fragments was revised.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:25, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Not done There are still symbols that are in use without being included in the key. File:Sinnbild Autobahnkreuz.svg, File:Sinnbild Autobahnausfahrt.svg, File:Zeichen 391.svg are not in the key. File:AB-Brücke.svg and File:AB-Tunnel.svg don't need to be in the key partially because the names of the features include the information, which actually makes the symbol purely decorative, and unnecessary. For the Toll symbol, it would not need to be added to a key if the Demerje exit had some text added after the graphic like "Toll plaza".
On some further reflection, let me offer a suggestion. Ontario Highway 401#Services or M62 motorway each offers a potentially more elegant solution to the situation of using the graphics. I ran the article through the alt text viewer, which does show that you've provided alt text for graphics that really don't need it. The practice in the US has been to set |alt=|link= for all highway marker graphics except the main image at the top of the infobox. That's because the graphics are of a more decorative nature in terms of the guidelines for alt text, but at the same time, we only use road sign graphics for the highway markers to address MOS:ICON-related issues. (In general, especially if you want to take this article higher up the chain to WP:FAC someday, you'll end up with suggestions to change these or outright oppose !votes over the issue.) Basically, you're better off to address them now rather than later.
In the Ontario case, there is a separate services section which describes the services available. What I'd suggest if you go this route, no pun intended, is a variation on this concept. Create a Services section and discuss the available options in general. Then at the bottom of the section, create a table like what Floydian did in the 401 article, but I wouldn't include match it exactly. Instead since all of your rest areas are named, just use a column for the name, a column for the Operator, Services (in text format, dropping the graphics completely) and Directions. Then in the exit list, just use a colspan for the service area and use text like "<name> rest area". Like the bridges/viaducts/tunnels, set the cell to align=center and drop the marker graphic in front of the name. The cell should then span from the exit column into the notes column. If these cells don't span into the exit column, the hyphens (-) in that column should be em dashes (—). (Like I said, the MOS nitpickers hate icon graphics, but we've been able to sell them on the concept that the highway markers are necessary for visual identification reasons.)
The second situation is that the service areas in the UK are notable enough to receive their own articles, shuttling all of the specific services into those articles. (Not all of the articles have been created at this time, but the concept is still valid.) Template:UK Motorway Service Stations has the full list of service area articles, some of which have been improved to Good Article status on their own. Imzadi 1979  14:22, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 Done Revised Rest areas into a new section with a RA list plus RJL per discussion.
  • The foreign language sources should have their original language titles in use with a translated title listed (using the |transtitle= parameter in the templates). Currently most of the titles have been translated and the original language titles not displayed, and a few don't have translated versions.
  • There is some confusion over what to italicize in the references. Titles of newspapers, magazines and the name of a website get italicized (using the |work= parameter) but TV station names, website domain names and government agencies should not be in italics since these are the publishers (use the |publisher= parameter). There is a difference between a domain name and the name of the website, although sometimes they are the same. *There is some overlinking at work. Only the first citation to a reference by a source/publisher should be wikilinked. "Hrvatske autoceste" is wikilinked every time, with a few uses in italics. If a source is in English, you don't need to indicate that. Source languages on the English Wikipedia are assumed to be in English unless stated otherwise, which you have done well.
 Done Revised as suggested.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:25, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm placing the article on hold to address these issues. Nothing here is hard to fix, so you should be able to accomplish this in the normal seven-day hold period, but let me know if you have any questions. Imzadi 1979  01:08, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to pass the article now. There are still some details to iron out, but they are in elements that are not directly in the Good Article criteria. Imzadi 1979  19:03, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Page move[edit]

I noticed that there was a number of page moves related to this article. I am not sure that the final title, A1 (Croatia) is the best choice. Judging from the intro section and from naming conventions in List of A1 roads, a reasonable choice woud be A1 motorway (Croatia). Whatever the name would be, the full name is not simply "A1". Please comment. Lothar Klaic (talk) 02:12, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

First of all, the article titles do not need to be full names.
But the concrete problem here is the scheme. If we move one to the " motorway" suffix, we need to do the same with the rest of the A* roads in Croatia, and then we run into the likes of A8 or A12 for which this moniker applies only in theory, not in actual practice, but the disconnect with reality becomes that much more obvious when we hard-code it in the article title. The encyclopedia needs to describe practical reality, rather than random politicians' wishful thinking... granted, we could just pretend that they are an authoritative source for the truth. But I can't help but feel a distinct dislike for such a gross violation of the spirit of the WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL rule. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:19, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't quite understand the relevance of your metioning of politicians and crystal balls. The article states in bold that it is called A1 motorway. I fail to see why it is bad title and I fail to see why "the rest of A*" roads must be named the same just because one of them is named so. Also, It is not the place of wikipedia to decide "which this moniker applies only in theory, not in actual practice". If it is officially called autocesta, then it is none of our business to rename it into, say, "dirt road". Finally, I did not say anything about "full names", but if you want to discuss this, I would theoretically agree with you. However just the same I might say that article titles should not be the shortest possible either. "A1 motorway" is reasonably short name with an additional benefit of being meaningful.
Concluding, none of your arguments is convincing. Lothar Klaic (talk) 17:04, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, that's the thing, we aren't renaming anything by using the its official short name name which is indeed - A1. Per Wikipedia:Article titles, we can use the short title, as long as it is recognizable, natural, precise, concise and consistent. I don't see a problem in any of those departments. If there was something else from Croatia named A1, it wouldn't be precise, but to my knowledge we have no such problem. If it's not consistent with all other road naming conventions, that's simply because there's a gazillion of them, so it's a non-issue. Whereas, if we employ the title "A8 motorway", the article's own first sentence of introduction becomes that much more inconsistent with its own title. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:02, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
I tend to agree with Joy on this one. Lothar, you can't change this one article without changing all of the other A# roads. Joy's point is valid as not all A# roads are motorways yet. The title is fine. Leave it be. Imzadi 1979  19:38, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
I have to agree with Joy as well - the title is recognizable and practical. I wouldn't change anything in that respect.--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:48, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
If there was something else from Croatia named A1: I am afraid you are lacking due diligence to verify your own arguments: A1 Liga IMO is more known than A1 cesta. Anyway, I may agree it is reasonable to have all A* have same title rather than mixture of autocesta/brza cesta/..., especially keeping in mind that status of some may change in the future and recalling that I am but a casual editor of the topic and don't know all traditions and previous arguments. Adijo a pozdrav. Lothar Klaic (talk) 00:30, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
The existence of A1 Liga was not the cited reason for the original move, probably because it's not really applicable - the most common name for the basketball championship is "A-1 Liga" - with a hyphen and with another word, and it is also natively disambiguated between the men's and women's leagues (the suffixes M and Ž). Granted, it's possible that someone refers to the basketball league as just "A1", but I don't see anyone doing that...? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 16:19, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
I honestly do not think that more people associate "A1" with basketball than with the motorway. Although there is no hard data readily available on A-1 Liga spectator attendance, it is confidently known that 53,000 vehicles carrying at least that many people (probably twice that many) use A1 on an average summer day. I am quite certain that all A-1 Liga matches combined, throughout a season do not have that big attendance. I suspect people not attending any basketball match know that there is a basketball league (most likely not knowning its official name), but likewise a lot more people know that there is a motorway out there - especially A1, which was and still is quite prominent in media due to construction plans, funding and construction issues, various sections opening during election campaigns, queues at the tunnels, queues at toll plazas, occasional accident bound to happen on such a long stretch of road, gale force wind closing a bridge etc.--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:00, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia:Article titles criteria name A1 motorway (Croatia) is better with respect to recognizability, naturalness and precision, current A1 (Croatia) just with respect to conciseness and consistency. As there is no specific-topic guideline for roads, i conclude that current article title is not best with respect to article title policy. --Jklamo (talk) 09:42, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
On the other hand, the official name of the thing is simply A1 not A1 motorway or Autocesta A1, just as Interstate 90 is not Interstate 90 highway. A1 motorway would be descriptive but IMO not necessary.--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:14, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
To play Devil's Advocate a moment, the state highways in Michigan are simply named M-28, and the articles are disambiguated M-28 (Michigan highway). If an additional term is needed in the title, please move that term, in English please, into the parenthetical. Then [[A1 (Croatia highway)|]] would "pipe trick" to just "AI". Suggested terms would be "highway" or "road" as a good generic term We could use "motorway", but that last one has the issues discussed above with A8 and A12. Imzadi 1979  19:58, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Sure, that's a valid argument. However, for now A1 DAB page has no reference to a single article on anything called A1 (A1 roads have a special DAB page linked there) in Croatia, so for the time being, present title appears to be fine. If, at some point, an article is created that may be confusingly associated with title A1 (Croatia), such situation should definitely be addressed. On the other hand, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:29, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

These days, most other entries in this set are indeed motorways, so I would no longer be averse to such a move. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:27, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Dead link[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 22:22, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Repaired! Thanks for the tip.--Tomobe03 (talk) 19:37, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 2[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 22:22, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

All dead links are now repaired.--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:03, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Pelješac Bridge v. Neum claptrap[edit]

There's a fair bit of a problem with Trajekti će biti skuplji i od pelješkog mosta by Josip Bohutinski/VLM:

Tako bi samo početno ulaganje u trajektno povezivanje dvaju dijelova Hrvatske iznosilo najmanje 64 milijuna eura, odnosno oko 480 milijuna kuna. Ugovorena cijena za most kopno – Pelješac, koji je Kukuriku vlada raskinula, bila je 1,95 milijardi kuna.
Računaju da će za jedan kamion cijena prijevoza u jednom smjeru biti viša od 1000 kuna. Usto, napominju da je problematičan i vozni red trajekata jer na tom području nema dovoljno teretnih vozila da napune trajekt dva ili tri puta u satu. Stoga će ili morati čekati da se trajekt napuni ili će trajekti morati ploviti sa samo dva-tri kamiona. Prema računici naših sugovornika, u cijenu projekta trajektnog prijevoza treba uračunati i troškove posada koje će na njima biti zaposlene i vjerojatnost da će ti trajekti uglavnom voziti prazni.
A kad se svemu tome doda i koncesija koju će Hrvatska plaćati za neumski koridor, onda sve to nadmašuje cijenu pelješkoga mosta. Uza sve to, budu li pristaništa u Komarnoj i Brijestima u jednom smjeru, upozoravaju naši sugovornici, trajekti bi vozili čak 40 do 50 minuta u jednom smjeru [...]
25 milijuna eura najmanje stajat će gradnja koridora kroz Neum
150 vozila bio bi kapacitet novih trajekata za Pelješac

OK, so the math this journalist used is very much unclear to me. 1.95 B kuna is 260 M euro, and that's an estimate based on the old contract - that was so bad that someone actually went through the cancellation, which isn't really so politically opportunistic - and it's been disputed in the press ages ago, e.g. this guy says it went up to 2.5 B kn just for the bridge, and then there are the extra costs for the access roads. But let's stick to 260 M Euro for the sake of discussion.

64 M Euro for the ferries + 25 M for the corridor is 89 M euro. 260-89 = 171 M Euro. So the estimated concession cost (that isn't explicated in the article) and the cost to the truckers has to combine to over 171 M Euro.

They estimated a worst case of three trucks per 50 minute ride, meaning 2* 24*60 / 50 = 57.6, let's say 60 truck rides per day, at an estimated cost of >1Kkn that's e.g. 80Kkn daily, or 29.2 M kuna a year, which is less than 4 M EUR. Let's not go for the worst case as far as speed of the ferries, and double or triple the number.

The derived estimated price of the concession for the Neum corridor is still 167 to 159 M EUR. Has anyone of any credibility actually ever published such a number anywhere in any sort of explicit form that could be verified? If not, this is simply not encyclopedic. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:01, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

A further clearly impossible figure is 25 million Euros for the Neum motorway section - the Neum strip alone is about 6km wide at the narrowest point, and access routes would need to be built on Croatian territory as well. How long would the motorway be is anybody's guess. This source specified 18km of Neum bypass as "closed corridor", presumably within Bosnia-Herzegovina, hence "closed" (I am skeptical about that much road required to cross 6km of straight line distance though). There's also about 10km of straight-line distance from planned A10/A1 interchange near Metković to the Neum strip and a similar distance on the other side of the Neum strip, between the border and Zaton Doli where planned A1 route is designed (but no construction takes place yet). Since roads are never that straight, it would be safe to assume that the motorway in Croatia alone would be about 30km long, for a total of 40km at least. Of course, if the bridge were built a substantial road would have to be built on the Pelješac peninsula - at least between the bridge itself and Zaton Doli - currently about 32km away along the existing road, but use of ferries for freight traffic in parallel to the Neum route motorway would require substantial upgrade of the Pelješac road - anything up to expressway standards is possible then. If an expressway were built, that would entail 70% of motorway cost, keeping of the existing route with upgrades for load carrying capacity would require substantially less - but it would be far from free. Price of the motorway set at 25 M€ is entirely unrealistic because the most recent examples of motorway building in Croatia point to a much higher cost: Since 2005, Dugopolje-Ploče section construction expenses and planned expenses required to complete the section combined to 8.2 M€ per km of the motorway. The A11 was even more expensive at 11.3 M€ per kilometer. At those rates, the estimated motorway construction funds would suffice for 2 or 3 kilometers of motorway, where 40+ are required, not to mention two Schengen-compliant border crossings (none of which are found along the two examples, but one built on the Vc corridor] costs 62 million Kuna (8.2 M€)). Further cost would be incurred through concession payments required by Bosnia-Herzegovina. Given the A1 kilometer price and the Vc corridor border crossing price, and assuming 40km of the route, that would make the price of motorway construction alone 40km x 8.2 M€ + 2 x 8.2 M€ = 344 M€ - far from estimated 25 M€.--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:15, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
The thing is, at least the 25 M EUR is referenced to something, e.g. there's even the minister's estimate of just 5 M for 5.5 km - I'm guessing everyone else figured that that was meant on a per-km basis, so the total is 5*5.5. We should clarify and classify them as the talk of a politician pushing an agenda, but at least their claims are barely verifiable. The claims in the aforementioned article are not - the newspaper says they talked to some experts and some anonymous truckers, and then they throw out some estimate of their own, apparently out of nowhere. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:07, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
On a side note, I think the same benefit of the doubt should be given to the cost of the 5.5 km as was given to the 260M EUR number for the bridge - neither included the huge amount of extra work in the access roads, probably because they're in separate contracts and separate parts of the budget. Besides, they're actually much easier to stomach - if one builds a new road to Brijesta, then there's an inherent value in that, regardless of whether there's a bridge or a ferry site or just a village there. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:07, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Plus, the obvious retort from these politicians would be that the recent road building was expensive because it was fraught with embezzlement, and they'll point to 4.1M EUR per km of motorway at Maslenica - Zadar 1, which is a higher standard road on a piece of terrain that can't be terribly different from this one. But someone of any stature would actually have to say that for me to put it into the article. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:17, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Notwithstanding reliability of all sorts of calculations - ranging from those estimates where the entire motorway section bypassing Neum would cost less than the cheapest built kilometre of motorway in Croatia ever to 70% of the bridge cost, I think the entire Neum bypass section by now may be classified as WP:CRYSTAL. I'll rewrite the section in a day or two replacing its content with a summary of what was actually planned and what was actually proposed (very briefly) and what is actual situation on the ground and in official plans (not much). How about that?--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:23, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Yep, I think the more general lesson here is that prediction of construction cost in an encyclopedia is a fool's errand. We can discuss the notion that something is discussed in the real world, but placing a lot of weight on a bunch of futurology is simply wrong. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:07, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Potential embezzlement aside, 1 Euro does not go as far nowadays as it did 5 years ago, and much less than 2 German Marks did. Furthermore, the Maslenica - Zadar 1 price did not include earthworks and land purchase and there's a great difference in overall construction cost depending on exact area of the works - if construction requires similar volumes of backfilling and excavation of material suitable for construction in relatively close proximity, price of earthworks will be much lower than elsewhere.
True, access roads need be built in both scenarios - bridge/no bridge. Still, an access road has to be built on Pelješac in both of the scenarios, but there's no point in speculation what would it mean cost-wise as nobody can tell if it would be a motorway, some sort of limited-access road, or just a resurfaced road as it is now if no bridge were built and what would it have been built as were the bridge in place. Quite simply, there are zero designs (even preliminary ones) for any sort of route between Ploče and Zaton Doli, and I wouldn't hold my breath for any estimate that is clearly not very well thought through. I imagine it is alright to report sourced opinions of notable persons, but the point is that's all crystalballing and nothing more.--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:31, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes. Even when notable persons make claims, these claims may still be too speculative to report in the encyclopedia. We can report about the fact that they said something, but must avoid going into too much detail, such that may lead the readers to conclude (wrongly) that futurology is of equal weight as actual facts. WP:NOT#NEWS. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:10, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Right, as a consequence, I tried to steer clear of reporting "personal" estimates and projections. Instead I made an attempt to make clear 1) what is the ultimate defined terminus of the A1 at this time (Dubrovnik); 2) what is actually being built right now and when it is expected to be completed (Vrgorac - Ploče IC); 3) that a section between Doli and Osojnik is fully designed but not actually built; 4) that no official plan exists between Ploče and Doli interchanges; 5) that there are two options to connect points A and B - via Neum hinterland or across an embayment of the Adriatic; 6) that the latter is normally associated with the Pelješac Bridge, giving the shortest possible summary of its case history; 7) that the former is currently discussed with Bosnia-Herzegovina authorities. How does this grab you?--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:51, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Southern extension[edit]

We need to do a thorough update for the completion of the sections towards Ploče. There's an article in Građevinar from 2012 [3] that can probably be used. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:05, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on A1 (Croatia). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:12, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on A1 (Croatia). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:30, 23 June 2017 (UTC)