Talk:M6 motorway

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Is the section about the A556 clear enough? It's not currently motorway (i.e. no M suffix), but the debate to upgrade to motorway has rumbled on for years. I'm wondering if the M suffix is a little confusing. Darac 00:03, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I have written a specific A556 road page. Perhaps it is worth moving the A556(M) reference to the A556 page and referencing it from here? Pixie2000 12:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Is the M6 really the first toll motorway ? ==Mangonel 12:26, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

The M6 Toll - an alternative route of the motorway - is the first toll motorway in the UK. The old M6 remains and is not a toll road. Robdurbar 15:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
It is the first toll motorway that isn't also an estuary crossing. The M4 and M48 both have toll sections (at the Severn Bridges) - but only in one direction. Going from England into Wales on either motorway, you must pay a toll. Both are therefore toll motorways for a short section. Richard B 20:25, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] The M6 near Lancaster

The reason for the short slip road on the M6 near Lancaster at Junction 34 has nothing to do with having to re-build a bridge (bear in mind the bridge was built as part of the motorway!).

When the M6 was built, it was as a Lancaster bypass. To discourage local journeys, no entry or exit points were specified between the Galgate Junction and the Carnforth Junction. However, the emergency services were concerned as to whether access could easily be obtained, and so the slip roads for what is now Junction 34 were built, but not to the same standard as a proper junction. In fact they were fenced off from the road initially.

Later it was decided to upgrade the junction to enable full access.

The junction has been a problem for some time, but nothing was done about it because it was potentially going to be replaced by a new Lancaster Bypass. In the 1990s this bypass was planned to go to the west of Lancaster and therefore eventually, in 2004 (I think) the southbound entry and exit sliproads were upgraded.

however, the junction is still due to be replaced as part of the Lancaster Northern bypass.82.40.248.105 17:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Junction 34

I have been at the Lancashire County Records Office, and press cuttings from the road's opening in April 1960 clearly show this junction open to general traffic. It was planned as an emergency access but upgraded to a regular junction during construction; it was not fenced off after the road opened as claimed on Wikipedia and elsewhere. Bryn666 (talk) 02:35, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Coordinates

I've just added coordinates for the first and last junctions to the table of junctions, using the new {{coord}} template and hCard and Geo microformat mark-up (you may need to refresh your browser, to see them with the updated CSS). This means that the coordinates are not only readable in plain text, but are also parsable by software and may, for instance, be looked up on maps or downloaded to GPS units. What do people think? How would people feel about adding them for other junctions, and services? Please see the microformat project for background info. Andy Mabbett 15:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it is a good idea. Will (We're flying the flag all over the world) 01:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Start and end I don't have a problem with and major junctions such as Great Barr (unless they have their own article) but every junction will simply clutter up the table without adding much of value. Regan123 15:16, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I noticed that when trying that on M62 motorway Will (talk) 20:22, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough, but I would be inclined to add them for the services, as well. Andy Mabbett 09:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Can I suggest that the coordinates for the services / major junctions etc. go on the specific pages for the services/major junctions - rather than in the main table. As with Regan123, I think too many coordinates in the table would clutter it up. One thing that would be ok in my opinion, but I'm not sure if it's supported by the software / or other users - could perhaps the coordinates be available as a file download linked from the motorway page - then that could be used to paste into Google Earth or GPS devices?? I would be against including more than a couple of coordinates in the table. Richard B 12:29, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't think coordinates can fairly be said not to have "much value". By including them, people can find the location, easily, on one of many mapping and similar services. By including them in a Geo microformat, as here, they also become downloadable into Google Earth or GPS devices, for instance. Andy Mabbett 09:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Update: please see M62 motorway for use of coordinates in the route template; noting the final external link on the page (using {{kml}}, to a service which passes the coordinates to Google maps, so that they can be plotted as "push-pins". Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 10:41, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Systemic bias

Is there any particular reason why this page sits where it does? Other countries have enormously longer and more important M6 motorways, e.g., M6 motorway (Russia). I believe M6 motorway should be reserved for a disambiguation page. --Ghirla-трёп- 17:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hauntings

This subsection has no place in what attempts to be a serious article. The single source is a press release from the company Tarmac which has been uncritically reprinted (shame on the Guardian), presumably as a bit of humour. Tarmac ran a completion in the run up the Halloween inviting people to send in their 'spooky stories' [1] for a chance to win a completion prize. Hardly surprising that:

  • People reported seeing ghosts (you don't expect to win the prize if you say they don't exist)
  • The longest motorway had the most spooky stories.

On this basis I think this hauntings section should be removed. Any comments? --ReddyRose 11:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)