Talk:V6 Grafton Street
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Buckinghamshire. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page. |
| Stub | This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale. |
| ??? | This page has not yet been assigned a rating on the importance scale. |
 |
This article is within the scope of the UK Roads WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the UK's road network. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. |
| Stub | This article has been rated as stub-Class on the assessment scale. |
| Low | This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale. |
 |
This article falls within the scope of WikiProject UK geography, a user-group dedicated to building a comprehensive and quality guide to places in the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you wish to participate, share ideas or merely get tips you can join us at the project page where there are resources, to do lists and guidelines on how to write about settlements. | |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale. (Add assessment comments) | |
| Low | This article has been rated as low-importance within the UK geography WikiProject. | |
[edit] Is this notable?
Although I've edited it, I wonder if this article really meets the "notability" test? --Concrete Cowboy 16:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
How do you mean? It is a very major road, trafficed very heavily and definately much more notable than several of the A roads that wikipedia has articles on. I think it is easily substantial enough to warrant an article, although none of the others are. User:Tom walker 19:33 GMT 25 July 2006
[edit] Bletchley Link
As I understand the Bletchley link from Granby roundabout over the WCML to Sherwood was abandoned in favour of upgrading the V7 Saxon Street and its junction with the V4 for better through traffic provision - what do you know of this? The V6 scheme was the Bletchley link or 'enigma bridge', I've seen the V7 named 'bletchley link 2'. User:Tom walker 17:36 GMT 11 September 2006
- The only info I have is the "Central Bletchley Regeneration Strategy" - see V6 Grafton Street#References. I found it on MKWEB, on the "Urban Design" section of MK Council. It is still there, with no reference to a change in plan. It specifically mentions the need to relieve congestion at the Saxon Street/Watling Street and Saxon Street/Buckingham Rd junctions. It also proposes that Saxon Street be downgraded to a local road after the Princes Way roundabout. But as you (at least I think it was you) speculated - how else can the Brickfields and Newton Longville developments be linked into the "public transport spine" (= Saxon Street) unless Saxon Street is taken up over Duncombe Street on a new flyover beside the "Varsity Line" (perhaps as a guided bus route? (= Bletchley Link 2? First I've heard of that one though). The MKCitizen archive search is down, so if there is any updated info, I can't find it. --Concrete Cowboy 17:16, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
That page is dated July 2004 - the project for the bridge was dropped after that, this [1] is newer - I'm sure I've seen other references in MKPPSC documents. To be honest I think any bridge scheme will be highly controvertial simply because of residents always oppose that sort of thing. Frankly it iis my belief that the Partnership is going the wrong way about transport in general - bus priority is great but we cant afford to loose some of the grid they are planning on making into thier 'City Streets'. The V10 through Oakgrove is pure insanity, and the H7 extensions at either end are planned little better. As for the link, whilst I support the Enigma Bridge I feel that it or another won't be happening. User:Tom walker 18:47 GMT 11 september 2006
- Yes, I found another reference that says that it has been dropped (at http://www.mkweb.co.uk/urban-design/documents/amendments_page.pdf ). Annoying that the Bletchley Regeneration page doesn't include this! I'll amend the main article. (PS odd that your posting is timestamped later than this reply?) --Concrete Cowboy 18:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
