Talk:Expressway (limited-access road)

Miscellaneous discussion

We should make an article called Difference between freeways and expressways and describe common and rare nomenclature along with disputed POVs about the nomenclature between the 2. One of mine theroies is that some highways with at-grade intersections with no disruption of highway traffic can be considered freeways. --SuperDude 00:53, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

This article is very strange! Who has ever heard of an expressway having traffic lights? Check the dictionary ... Definition of Expressway is limited-access with median. Primary definition of freeway is an expressway! Nfitz 16:07, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Which dictionary are you using? The California legal definition cited in the article reflects the nationwide consensus of American civil engineers as to the meanings of "freeway" and "expressway." --Coolcaesar 02:19, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Any dictionary I've seen. Websters, Oxford ...

How about this: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=freeway

Don't think we can be writing Wikipedia based on the odd definition by one lone jurisdiction! We should be following more general terms. God, if we let engineers design how things how language was going to work, can you imagine where we'd be? (probably in France!).

I recommend deleting this article entirely, and referencing it to the Freeway article. Or vice-versa. NfitzP.E. 23:07, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, now that's funny. I'm looking right now at my desk copy of the Webster College Dictionary (Random House, 1991).

Here is the definition of freeway, at page 531: "1. an express highway with no intersections. 2. a toll-free highway."

And here is the definition of expressway, at page 471: "a highway for high-speed traffic with few if any intersections and a divider between lanes for traffic moving in opposite directions." Please note the use of the words "few if any intersections."

Also, I just ran a Google search limited to the U.S. Department of Transportation Web site. In Section 1A.13, on this page [1], the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices defines freeway as "a divided highway with full control of access" and expressway as "a divided highway with partial control of access." All state Departments of Transportation have adopted the MUTCD completely or almost completely because they are required to as a condition of receiving federal aid for highway construction and maintenance.

After a few more Google searches, I determined that several other states share the California statutory distinction between freeways and expressways (there are probably more, but I don't have the time to do a thorough search). See Missouri Revised Statutes, Section 304.010; Nebraska Statutes, Sections 60-618.01 and 60-621; and Wisconsin Statutes, Sections 59.84(1)(b) and 346.57(1)(am). This is not about just "one lone jurisdiction." Please do your research before putting foot in mouth.

Also, I have to point out that Wikipedia policy is to go with the formal, objective, well-documented usage of a word in a field, not any informal, subjective usages which are poorly documented. Please see the No original research policy. Civil engineers are the professionals who design, build and maintain freeways and expressways; therefore, Wikipedia should defer to their judgment. In any case, the looser and informal usages of "expressway" are already explained in the "freeway" article.

In any case, I see no problem with keeping freeway and expressway separate. Expressway originally did point to freeway, but I split it off into a separate article (in line with the Wikipedia policy of chopping up too-big articles) because all the remarks about the nuances of the word "expressway" were making the "freeway" article too large and unwieldy.

If you find a lot of sources that point towards a contrary analysis, I might support a merge back into freeway, but for now, I think the status quo is fine for now. --Coolcaesar 04:58, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

If you use the "objective, well-documented usage of a word in a field, not any informal, subjective usages which are poorly documented." then you would a problem with highway then. A highway is any road - at least in it's legal sense. But the Wikipedia usage is "A highway is a major road within a city ...".

All your examples are still from one place - USA. But if you talk to people, I don't think anyone is going to say "An Expresway has traffic lights.".

In the text of this article, you pretty much outline the problem "Under this definition, many famous expressways are technically "freeways" instead of "expressways," such as the Gardiner Expressway in Toronto and the Schuylkill Expressway in Philadelphia." And add the Decarie Expressway in Montreal ... of course, it isn't offically called that anymore ... as it no longer has an official name in the English language. Do you have any examples of officially named Expressways that are simply arterial roads with traffic lights, and a small median?

Does anyone else outside of California have an opinion on this?

Nfitz 01:46, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, maybe you're right that the definition of highway should be changed as well. But I'm not as interested in highways as I am in freeways and expressways, so I'll open that can of worms later.

Next, if you had bothered to follow the link in the article to Santa Clara County expressway system, you would notice several examples of officially named expressways that are arterial roads with traffic lights and a small median.

There are also several other named expressways in California, such as the Alta Arden Expressway in Sacramento, and the Highway 86 Expressway and the Ramona Expressway both in Riverside County.

Finally, just because these examples are from the United States of America only has nothing to do with the issue. Many subjects covered on Wikipedia are unique to one country. There are a huge number of articles on many small towns and cities, American law, American sports teams, American highways, and so on.

The fact is that this distinction between freeway and expressway exists in civil engineering and law. It directly affects the lives of over 45 million people who live in the states that have expressly adopted this distinction into their statutory law, and indirectly affects all Americans, since they all drive roads regulated under the MUTCD. I think that, plus all the sources cited, are sufficient justification for preserving the current documentation of this distinction on Wikipedia. --Coolcaesar 11:42, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I can kind of see where you are coming from. It's a completely different meaning to the word than many places. And really does seem confusing, because I can't think of a generic North American word to mean a divided, limited-access, highway. In the UK, and much of the rest of the world, they use "Motorway", and in Quebec, even the English-speakers say "Autoroute". Freeway has problems, as many of them have tolls, and aren't free. Freeways and tollways is a mouthful.

But, as I said, I do see where your coming from. Based on that, I'd be tempted to do a bit of an edit on the article, and make it a bit more generic, and less absolutist ... but I'm not feeling inspired right now ... Nfitz 00:35, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

This article is completely California-centric. If I had time, I would edit it to make it less so. In most places in North America where the word "expressway" is used, it means exactly the same thing as "freeway" in California and other western states and exactly the same thing as "motorway" in the UK. There are no "freeways" in the eastern US (except Michigan) or in eastern Canada. Highways that would be called freeways west of the Mississippi are simply called expressways. Every superhighway in Boston and New York is called an expressway (or a turnpike, which is seen as a subset of an expressway). For example: Southeast Expressway (the main route south from Boston), Cross-Bronx Expressway, Brooklyn-Queens Expressway, Long Island Expressway, etc., etc. The type of highway that is called an "expressway" in Santa Clara County, California, is simply known as a highway in the eastern US. It may be that the term defined for superhighways in federal government regulations is "freeway". However, people do not consult federal regulations before looking up a term in an encyclopedia. For the 160 million or so people living in North America east of the Mississippi, this article does not provide the information they wanted. Instead it offers the message:

"You are using the wrong terminology. The term you and everyone you know uses for the superhighways that link all the cities around you in fact refers to an obscure type of highway found mainly in Santa Clara County, California. So learn to speak the language correctly and use the Californian term, freeway."

I don't think this is the most helpful approach for an encyclopedia article. Marco polo 18:36, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

As I pointed out above (scroll up a few paragraphs), the Random House dictionary definition also reflects the official definition. Also, as I've said elsewhere on Wikipedia, when it comes to the use of land for transportation, it is the law that controls, not any individual's subjective sense of what a word means. For example, it is the law that says that a given piece of land is a road and it is therefore illegal to park there (with unpleasant consequences like towing and a huge fine), while another piece of land is a parking space, and it is legal to park there. Otherwise, all you have is just, well, empty land usable for any purpose by anyone, like the way it was when the only people in North America were the Native Americans. To explain this in other contexts: I may dislike an unusually low speed limit, or a particular stop sign which really should be a yield sign, or an idiotic traffic light that turns red when there is no cross-traffic, but that gives me no excuse to ignore such controls.

Also, expressways are found throughout California (for example, many stretches of U.S. Highway 101, and indeed, throughout the other states which use similar terminology (see the citations in the Freeway article, much of which I contributed). --Coolcaesar 04:42, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Could someone who knows put something in here explaining the stuff about "access controls" and the like? Control by who? Huh? Thanks. 72.224.187.170 23:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Please read the Freeway article. The Expressway article already has a link to the in-depth explanation in the Freeway article. --Coolcaesar 19:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I oppose the merge

The problem with expressways is that the word is formally defined as essentially a kind of super-arterial road at the federal level in the U.S. but is defined as a freeway-like road in many U.S. states as well as several countries. Arterial road should not be cluttered up with all this confusion when this article already serves the purpose of explaining what the hell is going on. --Coolcaesar 00:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose I also oppose this merger. Not all expressways are arterial roads and vice versa. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 22:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Maybe this should be a disambiguation page. --SPUI (T - C) 22:35, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

It kind of is already. However the information above the disambig part of the page is actually useful and wouldn't fit IMO in the arterial article. Perhaps it could be moved or merged elsewhere possibly a new article? JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 22:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Coolcaeser

Im sick of this user. I have seen many of the articles he or she has edited and it's all biased information. Half of this article is about California, which coolcaeser added. un-responsible and an un-mature user. Please re read the Wikipedia policy Cool.

I am reverting your edit because deleting my comments constitutes vandalism and acting in bad faith. Please read Wikipedia:Vandalism, particularly the paragraph entitled "Talk page vandalism." If you disagree with my points, you should say why, rather than summarily deleting them.

Furthermore, the words you are looking for are "irresponsible" and "immature." Also, you left an apostrophe out of "I'm" and you forgot to elide "reread" into one word. I've left my opinion of your writing ability at User talk:Decimal10.

Finally, you failed to counter my argument, which is that we should consolidate all general freeway-related information into Freeway, the more specific term, so that this article then becomes a general pointer to both arterial road and freeway. User:SPUI agrees with my position although he has taken it much farther recently by merging material on freeways around the world into freeway. I suggest you consider cutting out the ad hominem attacks and start focusing on real issues. --Coolcaesar 07:23, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Expwy v. Freeway

For what it's worth, in the greater New York region, virtually all named, controlled-access highways that are not "Parkways" are "Expressways." (Cross-Bronx Expressway, Long Island Expressway, Deegan Expressway, etc. ...even the Atlantic City Expressway, which is of course more in the Philadelphia region, where "expressway" is similarly common). Let's not forget the John F. Fitzgerald Expressway in Boston, or the Dan Ryan Expressway in Chicago, just off the top of my head. In short, I think this article is rather narrow in its scope, since "Expressway" is the preferred term to "Freeway" for describing the same type of road in much of the US, and is considered an interchangeable, if less-used, term in other areas. The type of arterial "expressway" described here seems to be a use of the term peculiar to California.--Mjj237 21:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Please read Types of road (primarily researched by me), which explains the situation with the MUTCD and the five other states that share California's terminology. Also, all professionally trained American civil engineers use MUTCD terminology. --Coolcaesar 01:16, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

What is the point here?

Given the heated debate above I hesitate to comment but ...

It is fundamentally unclear what this article is here for. The article and the discussion page are mostly debating what the definition of the word "Expressway" is. As has been stated in multiple places, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. It is appropriate to mention alternate definitions briefly for the sake of clarity but fundamentally the article should be about some specific thing and it should be stated up front what this is.

If this article really is about anything but providing definitions then that is unclear and the article needs to be rewritten accordingly. If it really is just about providing definitions of this word then this should just be merged into another article. --Mcorazao 05:56, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it is fine to have an article on expressways, just like there is an article on freeways. And an expressway should be defined as a road that:

• is between an arterial road and a freeway
• is for higher-speed traffic
• is divided (probably)
• has infrequent access, including little to no driveways (e.g. already existing ones in a rural area), so that turning traffic is not an impediment
• may have cross traffic (probably)
• may have traffic signals, especially in urban areas
• should have some interchanges

IOW, this article should be about the technical term expressway, while also noting that many other roads are called "expressways", but are really something else, e.g. either a freeway or an arterial road. While K-96 may be called the State Fair Freeway, it is not a freeway; the same goes for expressways. See also road geek FAQ Jason McHuff 06:15, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

In Puerto Rico..

We call the freeways "expresos" which translates in english to expressway

Cleaning this up

See the months-long discussions at Talk:Freeway and Talk:Types of road if you're wondering what I'm doing with the article this weekend. --Coolcaesar 23:49, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I am doing the revisions right now. Too much lawyer work in the past week.--Coolcaesar 06:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Still too much lawyer work (preparing for and taking depositions is VERY time-consuming). Anyway I saved a local text copy. I will edit this when I have the spare time (probably on the road) and come back and upload it later. --Coolcaesar 17:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I finally got around to the rewrite and it is going to the Wikipedia server in 2 minutes. If you have an issue with the rewrite, take it up here. --Coolcaesar 11:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's getting better. It needs to read a little less like a legal document, but that polish should come now the framework seems to work! Nfitz 23:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Expy

'Expy' is the Abbrivation. In many Maps you can read st like 'Queens Midtown Expy'. I was curious about whats's the exact meaning and of course it's not so hard to google. but it could be more wikiwiki to mention it here. Supplemental it could be helpful to create the lemma Expy and relay to Express Drive. I wonder if you also say 'Expy' or do you read it and Think/speak 'Expressway'? Greetings, V.K.

suggested merge to Dual carriageway

Why do these need to be merged? Dual carriageway is generic while Expressway has certain legal definitions. If this were merged, then all divided highways would also need to be merged. Maybe a better question is does dual carriageway better fit into one of the other articles? Vegaswikian 22:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

• OpposeI agree, although some similarities exist, they are very different articles and shouldn't be merged. --TFoxton 23:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - I also agree. It looks like the user proposing the merge is a non-native speaker of English and does not understand the subtle differences between expressway and divided highway. Namely, that divided highway is a broad category that can cover roads of any size with a center divider, while expressway is a subset of that definition with a very complex legal and technical meaning. --Coolcaesar 23:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - There us loads of details on how Epressways and Dual Carriageways are diffrent. The whole merge idea must have been proposed by someone with little knowledge of roads and definitions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nevilledad (talk • contribs) 00:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose: A dual carriageway is any highway with a depressed central reservation or guide-rail or some other sort of barrier between highway lanes. It may or may not be one or more lanes in each direction. An expressway is a partially-controlled access highway that has is a dual carriageway, and may not be multi-laned as well. There is a difference in general operating definition between both terms. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 16:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose: they are different and merging would be a very bad idea. Dual carriageway is also used in countries where expressway is not, eg the UK. -- roundhouse0 16:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose: per above. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 16:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose per all the above arguments. Very different things. DWaterson 16:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, then improve the definition. As far as I can see, it's the same thing, except for different names and laws in different countries. – gpvos (talk) 12:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gpvos (talk • contribs)