Jump to content

Talk:A3 road

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A3(M) not part of the A3

[edit]

The article does not mark anywhere that the A3(M) isn't part of the A3. FM [ talk to me | show contributions ]  16:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It does nowPatrick lovell (talk) 15:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One Way Junctions

[edit]

As a daily commuter on the A3 from Woking to Wimbledon, I've always found it unusual in the number of junctions that only operate in one direction. There are so many (at least on the stretch I use) that it must be a planning decision somewhere.

e.g. (north means northbound entry and southbound exit, i.e both sliproads point 'north'. South is the opposite)

A31: North only
Guildford Catherdral: all directions
A322 in Guldford, South only.
A320 in Guildford, North
Burpham: South

or did you mean North? David Biddulph (talk) 12:39, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now you mention it, yes it should be the other way :o) --ThePaintedOne (talk) 10:57, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Send: South
Ripley: North
M25: All directions
Painshill: All directions
Esher Common: All directions
A309: South
Hook: South
Tolworth: All directions
New Malden: All directions
Raynes Park: South

After this the junctions into London mostly operate in all directions. South of Guildford it doesn't seem to be an issue either. It's very odd and quite a pain. For example the restrictions at Send mean that traffic from South Woking and Send that wants to go to London have to drive right past a Southbound only junction with the A3 then drive several miles through the village of Ripley to the Wisley junction. In essence it turns Ripley into a bypass to the A3! I can't recall another major trunk road set out this way so consistently over a long stretch.

I think this could be notable enough for inclusion, as I'm guessing there was some sort of traffic management idea here. But I can't find any refs online. Does anyone know anything about this which could be used in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ThePaintedOne (talk • contribs) 12:07, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many exits are just local ones serving villages. In Guildford, as it's passing through the town centre the town, junctions are closely spaced together so it kind of makes sense. The ripley and send thing, I imagine that they did not intend for those roads to be used by commuters. (Is London signed that way from Woking?)
In Guildford it causes horrid traffic problems in the road that links the two junctions as again the local road is being used as a bypass to the A3. From most of Woking you are directed up through Byfleet to Painshill for London, but that's a horrid drive for traffic, especially from the South side of the town (where I live). I just find it curious to see so many in a short space of road, I can't recall another major artery set up this way so I'm guessing it was a deliberate plan at some time in history. I can't imagine it will change any time soon, but it would be interesting to know what that plan was, but I somehow doubt any relevent records can be found without a lot of detailed research.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 10:16, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a planner, but I think it's a tradeoff, congestion on the link roads versus complete gridlock on the junction itself. I can think of a couple of other examples in Bristol and Oxford for instance, where you have junctions in major towns. The trouble is that you have a lot of traffic wanting to just go across the junction to get to the other side of town, mixed in with traffic wanting to go one of two ways up or down the dual-carraigeway. Splitting the junctions means that a)there's more capacity and b) you don't have traffic crossing 4 ways, merely 3, which is exponentially less of a problem. You can see the effects of that at something like J10 on the M20 at Ashford, which is far worse than any traffic within Guildford - and there's no real way around it. If they get the money, they're going to split it into two "one-way" junctions in the near future. So I think the message is that if you think it's bad now, it would be far worse with two-way junctions. But there's a direction for you to explore, in any case. Le Deluge (talk) 12:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ham Barn roundabout

[edit]

Added a section on the roundabout. Anyone with a picture, of the road sign would be fantastic, as this would indicate its shape? Grunners (talk) 18:30, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great, and interesting, but I am the only person in the world who doesn't know what it means for a lorry to "canter"? If not, could you please consider either replacing or defining it (if I am, it's fine, you only need to tell me!) Cheers DBaK (talk)
It means nothing, sorry, was obviously having a daft few minutes! Grunners (talk) 16:22, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh thank goodness, I thought I was just being higgerant and everyone else knew Lorry Drivers' Secret Code. Thank you for sorting it out so beautifully and, er, 10-4 good buddy DBaK (talk) 17:19, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on A3 road. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:13, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiability & Original Research issues, especially Bracknell

[edit]

I am confused why there is so much information (if that's the right word) about Bracknell in this article. Quite apart from the fact that much of this breaks the Verifiability policy and verges on Original Research, surely most people heading for Bracknell will use the M3 or even the M4? In general this article needs a lot more in-text citations as there is plenty which could be easily challenged, but the stuff about Bracknell is extreme and I would argue Out of Scope. Can anyone shed any light on this? --Peeky44 What's on your mind? 11:33, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The references to Bracknell came from a series of edits by IP 86.179.111.35 in February, which I have now reverted. Thanks for pointing it out. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:39, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on A3 road. 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}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:46, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on A3 road. 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:59, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on A3 road. 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:50, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Junctions debate

[edit]

There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Highways#Major junctions debate yet again that may affect the content of this article. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:13, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the amount of junctions in the infobox has gone down from 31 to 10. Roads4117 (talk) 17:56, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, if anyone could add a junctions table, I would be grateful. Roads4117 (talk) 10:08, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:A3_road&oldid=1197133132"