Talk:Freeway/Archive 1

Chinese nomenclature
As far as I know China, Japan and Korea all use &#39640;&#36895;&#36947;&#36335;, lit. "high speed road", for freeways. What does the comment about China formerly using freeways refer to? Jpatokal 13:19, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Japan and Korea is &#39640;&#36895;&#36947;&#36335;. Mainland China and Taiwan is &#39640;&#36895;&#20844;&#36335;. Freeway and expressway both translate to &#39640;&#36895;&#20844;&#36335;, although the English naming was different before. On a disused sign on the Jingshen Expressway, I found out that in the mid-90s, some routes were renamed, albeit unofficially/briefly, to highway. See Expressways of China for more on freeway/expressways. --DF08 16:17, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Here it states that China has the 2nd largest freeway network, while the Autobahn article says it is the German network that is second to the US. Which one is true?

It depends upon whether one considers toll highways "freeways". The Autobahns do not have tolls; almost all Chinese motorways have tolls. "High speed roads" is a suitable description of all limited access divided highways, whether they are called "freeways", "expressways", Autobahnen, Autostrade, Autoroutes, Autopistas, Throughways, Turnpikes, Tollways, Parkways, or whatever happens to be the local nomenclature. --Paul from Michigan 11:42, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

China's network is longer
Hello:

Just ran some Google searches. At the end of 2003, the autobahn network in Germany was at just under 12,000 total kilometers, while China's network was at 29,800. The U.S. Interstate highway network is at about 68,500 km. China's current official "build-out" goal is 82,000 km. Not bad for a country that built its first expressway in 1987.

If you've been following the international news over the past two years (I use Google News), you would notice that all journalists in China agree that the country is building expressways like crazy (while destroying enormous amounts of inner-city slums and farmland in the process). Basically, China is sick and tired of always being behind the rest of the world, which it has been for two centuries. Since everyone credits the Interstate highway system as being one of the key components of the American economy (in terms of facilitating commerce and tourism), China sees expressways as one way to catch up with the U.S., so that it will be a truly modern (and powerful) country.

--Coolcaesar 00:04, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Controversy
The controversy portion has been updated to include a more descriptive range of views and actions of anti-urban freeway critics. The original comments were not specific enough to merit consideration and needed serious revision. I also added a photo of a typical Houston traffic jam (most importantly, from driver's eye level) because the picturesque nature of the existing freeway photos presented POV problems and certainly serves to marginalize the existence of persistent traffic congestion on major urban freeways.

--Emersonbiggins85 21:46, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Why I am putting back the I-5 picture at the top and moving the Tullamarine Freeway picture down
The main reason the I-5 picture should stay at the top is because it represents what the vast majority of freeways look like. That is, the vast majority of freeways are rural freeways that run through the countryside and have a broad separation between traffic going in both directions, and all cross-traffic is relegated to overpasses or underpasses.

The Tullamarine Freeway picture, while lovely, fails to illustrate this, because it does not show cross- or opposing traffic---it could be a picture of any freeway or non-freeway tunnel, ramp or viaduct anywhere in the world. For example, Canada has many short non-freeway road segments that look like that.

Also, I hate to sound U.S.-centric, but the truth is that freeways were invented in Germany (in the form of the autobahn) and refined into their modern form in the United States (during the construction of the Interstate system).

Australia is a relative newcomer to the freeway-building movement and has not yet even completed a true freeway between any two of its largest cities (e.g., a connection between Melbourne and Perth, or between Melbourne and Sydney). Most highway segments in Australia are still just ordinary roads or expressways. My point is that an article on freeways should lead with an illustration of freeways from where they were primarily developed into their modern form, since that would be most representative of the majority of freeways. --Coolcaesar 00:05, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Refined, defined
"Also, I hate to sound U.S.-centric, but the truth is that freeways were invented in Germany (in the form of the autobahn) and refined into their modern form in the United States (during the construction of the Interstate system)."

'Refined' is particularly subjective, and does sound rather U.S.-centric, even by your own admission. Autobahns and Autoroutes in Europe incorporate some of the newest engineering and technology that the world has to offer (see Millau Viaduct), obviously financed by some major toll/bond initiatives in place. Also, you would have a hard time arguing that the derivative, partially derelict U.S. interstate system is superior to a modern European system that continues to be expanded and upgraded (many rural sections are 6-8 lanes), all the while causing minimal interference with the scattered, isolated villages that dot the European countryside. Let's settle on the U.S. Interstate System being the most "refined" system that doesn't require tolling...yet.

--208.190.154.22 20:40, 25 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, I was not trying to make the point that American freeways are the most refined at the moment---most of them probably are not---but from the 1950s to the 1970s, the United States was well ahead of everyone else when it came to rapidly building freeways and making design innovations like the stack interchange. Of course, most of Europe and Asia were still rebuilding after World War II during that period.


 * As for the concept of a single "European" road system, the European Union's continent-wide integration of roads into a single system (e.g. the E highway road numbering) is a relatively new development, while American road construction was coordinated from the 1940s onward through AASHTO, the Federal Highway Administration, and the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices.


 * Finally, many rural Interstate freeway segments are 6 or 8 lanes, including large portions of Interstate 5 and Interstate 80. Furthermore, you are trying to compare apples to oranges.  It would make no financial sense to upgrade many rural portions of the Interstate system to 6 or 8 lanes because the population density of the surrounding communities is so ridiculously low.  Try visiting Montana, Idaho, or Wyoming sometime; widening Interstate 15 in that region would be a complete waste of money until the population of Alberta (at 15's northern terminus) is much higher than it is today. --Coolcaesar 22:47, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

I'll concede that AASHTO's design standards are the basis for modern interstate design, especially in the areas of signage designation and high-speed interchanges. And I'll also concede that having 6 or 8 lanes on a rural American freeway is frankly ridiculous (or is it, with all that NAFTA traffic??) The point I should've made to indicate the relative refinement of U.S. vs. European systems is that certain technological innovations, such as the real-time display data on traffic signs & car audio displays in Europe are far ahead of our own traffic monitoring systems here, which amount to a little more than "traffic on the 8's" in the U.S. cities, and no monitoring at all on rural stretches of freeway. This allows government authorities to interrupt any audio system (even if turned off or playing CDs) to deploy civil emergency warnings, traffic delay warnings, construction info, etc. Perhaps this might be better referred to as the "refinement" of automobiles, but I believe there is a good deal of state interest in the monitoring and deployment of those ITS systems in Europe. Because of this single innovation, coupled with extremely limited access points, Autobahn traffic is likely to be faster flowing and smoother than on the U.S. system, even with our high-speed stack interchanges.

Cali-centrism
Why are the first five geographically-identifed photos (and 5 of the first 6 overall) from the same US state? I recognize the point made above about relative development of the US freeway system and all -- and I suppose you could apply the some logic to California in particular -- but there should really be more geographic diversity IMO. Thanks, PhilipR 20:31, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

I think the nomenclature here is also very Cali-centric. "Freeway" is a California term used in much of the Western US, but not so much in the Northeast. I think the nomenclature section should reflect the distinction between "freeways" and "tollways" more emphatically, and have tried to start a change in that direction. --Bhuck 13:59, 2 August 2005 (UTC)


 * It's not correct to say "a distinction is made between freeway and tollway". One, neither of those words is widely used in the Northeast. (Is "tollway" used anywhere?) Two, in areas where "freeway" is used, it doesn't mean 'highway that you don't have to pay a toll to drive on'; toll roads are also freeways. AJD 14:11, 2 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I concur with Ajd's analysis. There are a few freeways in California which you have to pay a toll to drive on (mainly in Orange County), but they are called both toll roads and freeways, depending upon the context.  "Toll road" refers to the fact you have to pay; "freeway" refers to the fact that through traffic can move unimpeded by cross-traffic entering from intersections controlled by traffic lights or stop signs.  --Coolcaesar 17:24, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I am aware there are tollways in California which locals refer to (in my opinion, incorrectly) as "freeways". To answer AJD's question, if Tollway is used anywhere, just look at Illinois Tollway or this link. --Bhuck 14:13, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

The nomenclature varies from state to state. Illinois uses "expressway" to describe non-toll superhighways in the Chicago area. Michigan and Wisconsin use "freeway" for the same sorts of highways in most urban areas. Thus one speaks of the Dan Ryan, Edens, Stevenson, and Kennedy, Expressways in greater Chicago,  but the Gerald R. Ford, Ford, Fisher, Seaway, Reuther, and R.E. Olds Freeways are designated as freeways in Michigan. Practice similar to that of Michigan exists for greater Milwaukee, Toledo, and Cleveland. Chicago-area usage imitates the usage of New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania; Michigan, Wisconsin, and Ohio usage imitates the usage of California. Almost nowhere is any toll route ever designated a freeway in the United States. Most people do not consider the carrying of currency or the use of chits or a transponder for use to pay for driving a highway a triviality. Tolls are a part of life for some commuters, and they distinguish some parts of the commute from others.

To add further confusion, some former toll roads called turnpikes or parkways in earlier times are still so called. But if highways in the Illinois Tollway system ever be de-tolled, it would be likely that those routes would be re-designated as "expressways" or even "freeways". "Expressways" are usually free routes in New York and Pennsylvania, but almost all "expressways" in Florida are toll highways, and there is the Atlantic City Expressway in New Jersey.--Paul from Michigan 07:12, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Nomenclature
We should make the nomenclature section of this article be like a list! --SuperDude 20:55, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Done. 203.218.141.99 07:08, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

The UK
Since Motorway is the official term for freeway in the UK, do roadgeeks in the UK ever refer to the high speed dual carriageways with an "A" designation as freeways since people travel 70mph on them? --SuperDude 02:19, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Don't think I'm enough of a roadgeek to give a definitive answer, but I've never heard of a road of any sort in the UK being referred to as a 'freeway' jlang 11:32, 31 May 2005 (UTC)


 * In the UK, there are motorways - which are designated Mx or Axx(M) - where access is restricted - i.e. no pedestrians, learner drivers, scooters, invalid carriages. There are other A roads which are not designated M, and don't have these restrictions, but still seem to meet the definition of freeway. -- Beardo


 * Roadgeeks and drivers in general, refer motorway like A roads as dual-carriageways. Freeway is not a term used anywhere in the UK, by the HMSO, the DVLA or drivers: The word simply does not exist in the vocabulary. ''See www.highwaycode.gov.uk Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 22:56, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * There is a nomenclature problem which should be addressed in this article. Motorway is not the official term for freeway in the UK, how can it be a term for something which does not exist and is undefined?
 * The British term Motorway has a legal defination which centres around it being solely for Motor vehicles. Pedestrians, bicycles, horse drawn vehicles are all banned. A Motorway also has certain construction standards, no traffic lights, access by slip roads, and usually multiple lane.
 * The French Autoroute, German Autobahn, Autopista, Autostrada etc. are all similarly defined and use the same logo.
 * Motorway = Autoroute = Autobahn = Autopista = Autostrada, these are all just translations.
 * You can have single-lane Motorway/Autoroute/Autobahn etc., but these are rare


 * The Motorway logo sign is a legal statement that from this point onwards different laws apply. I can (legally) cross an A-road on foot, but not a Motorway.


 * How does this relate to a freeway, what is the legal status of a US/Canadian Freeway, and can I walk along it? This article does not clarify this point.
 * Motorway/Freeway is a text-book example of being separated by a common language.
 * TiffaF 16:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * This article states "Italy was the first country to build a freeway"; the British, Irish, Australians, New Zealanders, etc. would disagree. The opening line, "a freeway (also motorway or expressway)", suggests that "freeway" and "motorway" are synonyms, which they are not.


 * Seeing as geographical disambiguation exists in the opening line of the "motorway" article, I suggest, that the opening lines of this article follow suit and include clear mention that the term "freeway", regardless of it being a characteristic (rather than legal) definition, is representative of only a certain portion of the English-speaking world. Mixsynth 14:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * All the road articles need to be revised but all the road geeks are too busy to deal with it right now. Join the conversation at Talk:Types of road.  I agree that this article should be limited to freeways where the term is actually used.  --Coolcaesar 02:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Illustration caption - even under the way the article uses nomenclature, the caption is wrong to describe the symbol as "This stylized drawing of an overpass is used to represent a freeway in the United Kingdom" as the symbol is only used to represent roads legally defined as motorways, and not for dual-carriageways 81.178.119.178 22:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

pseudo-freeway
My mind thought of a term called "pseudo-freeway", I tested it on google and only got 48 hits. Should we still make it a redirect for RIRO expressway since an RIRO expressway can sometimes be a pseudo-freeway since some of them have a design speed of 65mph or more? --SuperDude 05:17, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

RIROs look like a different creature. They are not standard freeways, but unlike the dangerous pseudofreeways that I discuss, they do not have median crossings or at-grade intersections, typically rural routes that still have intersections with highways and driveways. Danger from collisions at intersections and driveways remains. RIROs at least have all traffic entering or exiting them taking the same direction at least after a merge.

An urban RIRO may be the optimal solution for building a highway that fits traffic needs but not disrupting the businesses that abut an existing highway with the need to condemn the nearby properties at great cost, to build a full freeway through an urban area with greater cost, or to let congestion to build upon a highway while nothing is done.

RIROS, surely faster and safer than most surface routes, do not look like full freeways, especially if they have businesses abutting them.

The rural pseudofreeway looks like a freeway despite having the same dangers as a surface road.--Paul from Michigan 08:06, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Removal of POV passage
I just removed the following passage because it appears to violate the POV and original research policies:


 * More importantly, the growth in private automobile ownership is inevitable. Alternative measures to freeways such as public transit and HOV lanes have failed to solve the problem of traffic congestion despite their high cost.

Although I personally love and support freeways, I do not think this passage can stay in the article because there are several problems with the assertions made within it.

First, growth in private automobile ownership is not necessarily inevitable. A rise in the cost of any of the commodities necessary for automobiles (steel, plastic, oil, etc.) or anything resulting in the stalling or reversal of population growth (epidemics, war, family planning, etc.) would result in a leveling out of automobile ownership numbers. If the cost goes high enough, people might simply shift to renting cars or trucks only when needed.

Second, HOV lanes are not really an alternative to freeways, but rather a method for boosting efficiency of existing freeways.

Third, the statement about public transit makes it sound like as if it is destined by design to fail. Actually, public transit could solve the problem of traffic congestion if population densities were high enough to support the construction of transit networks with very high service frequencies. The problem is that few people like to live in high-density areas because of other problems like noise, lack of privacy, and crime, and will escape to low-density areas as soon as it becomes practical (as demonstrated by the entire history of urban transportation). Of course, there are people who pay $20 million to live in high-rise penthouses in Los Angeles and New York, but then anyone with that much money can also afford good soundproofing, bodyguards, and bulletproof cars. So, until the density problem is solved, low density (and freeways) will be what people want. --Coolcaesar 02:07, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Revising assumptive reasoning
The following excerpt from the freeway article is assumptive at best. It is pure speculation, and the de facto manner in which it is proclaimed is certainly misleading. I've revised it to become more hypothetical in nature.

Original entry:

"Finally, constructing new freeways in built-up urban areas would divert cars away from local city streets, and in turn would make communities safer. The closure of an existing urban freeway (or the imposition of tolls) would simply force traffic back onto local streets, instead of making it disappear."

Revised entry:

"Finally, constructing new freeways in built-up urban areas could divert cars away from local city streets, and in turn might communities safer. The closure of an existing urban freeway (or the imposition of tolls) could simply force traffic back onto local streets, instead of making it disappear. However, some studies [8] have shown that the removal of urban freeways actually reduce traffic congestion by causing people to find alternate routes, use mass transit or simply reduce driving altogether."

Quote from Suburban Nation:

"The phenomenon of induced traffic works in reverse as well. When New York's West Side Highway collapsed in 1973, an NYDOT study showed that 93 percent of the car trips lost did not reappear elsewhere; people simply stopped driving. A similar result accompanied the destruction of San Francisco's Embarcadero Freeway in the 1989 earthquake. Citizens voted to remove the freeway entirely despite the apocalyptic warnings of traffic engineers. Surprisingly, a recent British study found that downtown road removals tend to boost local economies, while new roads lead to higher urban unemployment. So much for road-building as a way to spur the economy."


 * And I assume you are one of those New Urbanist anti-car maniacs?

First of all, I don't appreciate the ad hominem attack on anyone you deem 'opposed' to the automobile lifestyle. Very mature.

Now, getting back to a semblance of relevance, I am not anti-car. In fact, I have a love of the interstate system and 'the open road' fairly commensurate with your own. I am opposed to development that favors the automobile as the primary mode of transit, to be designed for above and beyond all other forms. The effect that the auto has on the urban landscape is appalling and inarguable, and it's no small wonder that the cities most traveled and romanticized are those that have refused to relegate their public realms to the supposed 'needs' of the car.


 * The kind who read Jane Jacobs and then twisted her ideas beyond recognition? By the way, she repudiated New Urbanism in an interesting interview with Reason.com a while back.

How exactly am I twisting Jane Jacobs' writing? She was adamantly opposed to Robert Moses' form of 'urban renewal', which meant the paving over of neighborhoods in New York City. Her 'repudiation' of New Urbanism had more to do the general arrangement of 'places of gathering' in new developments, as well as the overall outcome of new developments like Celebration, among the first NU developments developed on a large scale. Don't confuse yourself by assuming Jacob doesn't agree with the general tenets of New Urbanism, which only reflect the tenets, e.g. removal of government intervention & obstacles, of old urbanism. At any rate, you can be sure that NU is far more preferred by Jacobs than the CSD style of building. Remember, NU is only about 10-15 years old, and Jacobs' disdain for the community of Celebration is often shared by those in NU circles, anyways.


 * Anyway, I concur that the statement as originally worded was too conclusory, but I disagree with your new remarks claiming that freeway removal stimulates economic growth. People did not stop driving; they simply drove somewhere else.

The 'new' remarks praising the removal of urban freeways as a boon to economic growth aren't recent. I put those in at least two months ago. And, if you are referring to the above excerpt from Duany in regards to economic studies performed by Britain, might I remind you that those quotes only exist in this 'discussion' section (not in the main article).


 * Many California businesspeople deliberately avoid San Francisco due to its severe traffic congestion (the result of its 1959 anti-freeway policy) and high commercial space costs (the result of its mid-1970s anti-skyscraper policy). Last time I checked, the growth (and traffic) was simply pushed out to edge cities like Antioch, Pittsburg, Vallejo, Vacaville, Livermore, Tracy, and Gilroy.    --Coolcaesar 03:53, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

All of the 'growth' did not shift to the suburbs, as you suggest. SF is landlocked, so its 'growth' will always be somewhat limited without densification. However, the bigger issue at hand is 'why' did the other areas grow? Postwar suburbs obviously grew because of government intervention in the market with the development of freeways, segregated zoning, and quasi-governmental financing of the single-family home suburban lifestyle. When government stepped in to finance the suburban 'American Dream', it made the 'Dream' artificially affordable for all, thus causing the growing queue of sheeple at the feed trough of market manipulation.


 * First, I concede that I may have misconstrued Jacobs' comments in that article. But I vehemently disagree with your assertions regarding the effects of the automobile on the landscape.  Although it is true that a few freeways built prior to 1960 were badly designed (e.g. the former Embarcadero Freeway in San Francisco), most freeways built then have been designed with aesthetic and environmental concerns in mind.  For example, the Century Freeway in Los Angeles, the Junipero Serra Freeway linking San Jose and San Francisco, and Interstate H3 in Oahu are all graceful, aesthetically pleasing structures which complement and enhance the beauty of the communities which they run through.  Also, as you should know, the trend nowadays is to build tunnels to avoid sensitive areas, as happened in San Diego with the completion of I-15, and is happening right now at Versailles with the pending completion of the new superperipherique around Paris.


 * I am personally appalled that the United States continues to divert funding away from freeway construction while nearly all other developed (and developing) countries have accelerated their freeway construction programs. Those countries recognize, unlike the U.S., that properly constructed freeways bring tangible benefits in the form of economic growth, "road trip" vacations, reduced commute times, reduced pollution, and higher property values.  Indeed, if you bother to look them up on a map, most of the towns in the California article with the highest property values in California all have freeways running right through the middle of them.


 * Finally, the main reason why cities keep sprawling is that most people simply do not like to live next to where they work, and they value light, space, quiet, privacy, and security, which are difficult to find in the inner city (unless one lives in a soundproofed penthouse condominium with skylights, gardens, and armed bodyguards on call 24 hours a day). One of the basic points taught in college-level human (or social) geography courses is that every major advance in transportation technology has resulted in an expansion in the size of cities.  Suburbs developed first with the horse-drawn streetcar, and then grew outwards with technologies like the electric streetcar, cable cars, commuter rail, ferries, the automobile, the paved highway, and the freeway.  Of course, they tended to sprawl much faster and farther where land was cheap, like in the United States, and slower where land is expensive (that would be most of Western Europe).


 * Are people sheep? Maybe to the extent that they vote for politicians that give them what they want (I thought that was how democracy was supposed to work).  But to suggest that they are manipulated by the market is simply ridiculous.  Rather, the economy simply responds to the desires of the consumer---the law of supply and demand.  People want single-family detached homes, and they're getting them by any means necessary.  This is not merely an American phenomenon; it's also happening right now in major cities in China, India, Australia, and Canada, just to name a few.  These countries are rapidly building freeway networks and developing vast sprawling suburbs just like the U.S.  In any case, some of the nicest, friendliest, safest and prettiest communities in the United States happen to be also among its most car-friendly communities.  Santa Clarita, California; Scottsdale, Arizona; and Summerlin, Nevada come to mind.  I'm sure I could think of more if I had the time.  --Coolcaesar 06:27, 18 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Let's keep the warring out of this; talk pages are for discussing the article, not arguing about the subject of the article. --SPUI (talk) 07:14, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

LOL - I guess it was turning into a forum thread. OK, Coolcaesar, I'll grant that freeways have come a long way since the 1960s era of 'urban renewal', but I still think that towns & cities that have not sold their hearts out to segregated zoning, asphalt landscapes and strip malls are the ones that are to be emulated. Think: Charleston, SC, Georgetown, San Francisco or even Paris - definitely all accessible by car, but also accessible by transit or by foot. Real estate values in these cities can be correlated as some of the highest in the world. And that's no accident.


 * Fine. You made your point; I made my point; we agree to disagree. End of discussion. --Coolcaesar 05:49, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Freeway nomenclature in Australia
It has always been my impression that in Australia, or at least in Sydney, both freeway and motorway are used, but a freeway is free to use and a motorway requires a toll. If you look at a map of Sydney, all the toll-roads are called Motorways and all the non-toll-roads are called Freeways or Expressways. Does anyone know any more about this? Dome359 12:20, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Why I edited out the irrelevant garbage
I edited out the following text today:

Freeways in pop culture

 * In Simcity games, 2000 and latter ones, the freeway is referred to as a "highway".
 * Early usage of the term "Freeway" in a song was in Chuck Berry's late 1950's Christmas song Run Run Rudolph. Back during that time, many freeway systems in the United States were isolated (i.e. not interconnected like today's Interstate system).
 * Driver 2 was the first video game to feature freeways.

The above text was removed for the following reasons:


 * SimCity and Driver 2 are of limited interest to most people who visit this page. If we use a standard of relevance that allows for the inclusion of information of such limited relevance, then we will be inviting a mountain of garbage. That information should be placed on the relevant pages for those games.
 * Outside of a relatively small number of immature male adolescents (I used to be in that category), the vast majority of the human species is more interested in movies and TV than video games. Furthermore, even though the number of adult video and computer gamers is rapidly growing as the first generation of hardcore gamers grows up, they tend to prefer games with more adult themes like Half-Life and GTA.
 * As I noted in the History section (and gave citations for), New York Times articles as early as the mid-1930s were already using the term "freeway." Therefore, it is likely that songs as early as the 1940s or late 1930s were probably also using the term.  If we're going to be mentioning popular cultural references, we should mention the very earliest one and keep it at that one alone.  A full list of every single cultural reference to freeways would require an article of its own, and that article could not remain on Wikipedia for failure to satisfy the requirement that Wikipedia content must be notable.  Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a blog.
 * Even if Driver 2 (released November 2000) was the first video game to allow users to drive freeways from a first-person perspective (a point which I seriously doubt), I should point out that Midtown Madness (released April 1999) was the first computer game to allow users to do the same. And either way, that fact is of extremely limited relevance to this article.  Most people who visit this article typed "freeway" into the search box because their curiosity was piqued by driving on the things in real life, not in a damned video game.  --Coolcaesar 04:56, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Credit & Blame
There is a lot of talk above from people jockeying to assign the credit for the invention of the limited-access highway. Let them : I see it as blame, not credit. What the US can take credit for is the placement of the automobile into the hands of the common man by Henry Ford : What has followed is best forgotton. Far from liberating that man, it has enslaved him, particularly now that over half the jobs in the US today are not paid sufficiently well to provide comfortably for the purchase and operation of an auto without which no job at all can be secured in many places, let alone pay for food, clothing and decent housing as well.

The Future
The blinders need to be removed : the day of the autonomous machine is upon us. While some like to call such machines "robots", this term has, unfortunately, acquired an inappropriate anthropomorphic connotation. The automobile controlled by a human operator is simply doomed. It will be replaced by autonomous, 24/7 personal, portal-to-portal, utility-owned transportation. In denser urban areas, it will operate on existing streets without substantial modification of either; further out, it will operate on existing rural highways or cut-back freeways (fewer ramps and fewer non-grade crossings) with only slight modifications; for long hauls, it will operate on optimized guideways at very high speeds, electronically coupled into "trains" that never halt. Freeways and automobiles have taken us about as far as they can in the US and it is time to abandon them -- only in that way can we avoid the planeload of men, women and children that we slaughter on and with them every day !


 * While an amusing fantasy, this manifesto has no relevance to the article. Please keep your comments limited to the actual content of the article (i.e. what you think should be included or removed) or you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.  --Coolcaesar 08:54, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Freeway vs Expressway
I read the entire section on "Nomenclature", and I still have no idea what the difference is between a freeway and an expressway. Maybe my background is to fault (I live in Los Angeles, where I've never even heard the term "expressway"), but that section seems extremely unclear. A straightforward definition would be much appreciated. Lantoka 23:57, 7 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Both freeways and expressways are high-speed divided roads with multiple lanes, and both of them generally do not have access to adjoining properties &mdash; that is, no driveways. The difference between them is that expressways may have at-grade intersections controlled by traffic lights or stop signs, while freeways do not have such intersections.  A freeway has only interchanges, with overpasses/underpasses and ramps, and not intersections.  Therefore, drivers on expressways must be prepared to deal with cars routinely making left turns in front of them, while drivers on freeways do not have to worry about that.


 * For example, U.S. Highway 101 is classified as a freeway (the Ventura Freeway) in Los Angeles, but becomes an expressway for many stretches in Santa Barbara County and in counties farther north. Every time you see an "End Freeway" sign on U.S. 101 followed by an at-grade intersection (with the big arrows on the pavement pointing straight ahead), you are officially on an expressway.  That's the difference.  --Coolcaesar 05:26, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

The terminology issue raised by Lantoka
After mulling over Lantoka's question, I realized that the freeway/expressway section under United States is a total mess that is opaque and unusable to anyone who is not already a road geek! It needs to be thrown out and completely rewritten. Here is how I will restructure it:


 * Start with a "Generally" subsection explaining the general distinction used by U.S. DOT, California, several other states, and civil engineers in general, as I have done at Expressway, and explain who exactly uses it;
 * Then follow with an "Exceptions" subsection for all the weird exceptions like Florida.

What does everyone think? --Coolcaesar 23:03, 11 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Okay, here goes. --Coolcaesar 06:44, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Looks good—it's much improved. I think that the comment about people in California knowing about the difference is not quite accurate. It's really only true of people in Santa Clara County. There aren't really many roads elsewhere in the state that are called "expressways", and southern Californians especially are just as baffled by the distinction as east coasters.


 * You might give a go to highway. Personally, I think that should just be made into a simple dab page to freeway, expressway, and road. Nohat 09:18, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Issues with pictures in the gallery
Hello everyone:

Okay. The gallery was supposed to be a small thing and now people started adding stuff and it is growing out of control. Here are the issues I personally have with it as it now stands:

And with all due respect. . . . I spent a considerable time and eyestrain creating pretty accurate Taiwan freeway signs. There are already complaints on this discussion board that this freeway article is a bit too American-centric. Allentchang 17:50, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) I don't like the diagrams added by Allenchang.  First, I don't speak or read Chinese, so I'm unable to read the relevant ROC government Web sites to verify whether those diagrams are accurate.  Second, road signs are so ubiquitous that it would not be too difficult to simply take a photograph (as one Wikipedia editor has already done for Clearview (typeface)).
 * If you tried hard enough with enough creative thinking, you would have noted the following English website: which contains a comprehensive dictionary of signs (scroll down the ENITRE page before dismissing it as nothing useful).  I travel on Taiwan's freeways at least twice a week roundtrip from Hsinchu to Taipei so I do know really well what is going on and be able to reproduce those signs with powerpoint.  The problem with photographs is that their quality depends on the weather conditions, the direction of the sun, as well as the frustrating task of having one's camera target and focus well on the relevant signs.  Then think about the problem with resolution . . . maybe one would consider investing a 12x zoom camera so that the photograph of the signs are not taken at an angle.
 * The complaints you refer to are old complaints. The article now contains an enormous amount of information (and many relevant photographs) concerning freeways outside of the United States.
 * Also, just because photographing freeway signs at high speed is hard does not mean it is impossible. There are numerous examples in this article and all over Wikipedia (of which many were taken by me) and you can find many more with a quick search on Google.  High-quality, high-resolution digital cameras with 5x optical zoom and 1/2000 sec. shutter time are cheap ($350 or less) and ubiquitous in both the United States and East Asia.  If you have the time to play with Wikipedia, you have the time to play with a digital camera.
 * Again, I reiterate my position that it makes no sense to have diagrams of every type of freeway sign in the world (which is what your position will inevitably lead to once a precedent is established) when it is so easy to take pictures of them "in the wild." I intend to delete all such diagrams from the article when I get around to another complete revision of Freeway (in about another month after I finish my complete revision of the Lawyer article).  If any other editors agree or disagree with me, please say so.--Coolcaesar 04:06, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Why must you insist that EVERY freeway sign must be photography based? If a diagram was created using information from a verifiable source (like the links that I have provided), then one shouldn't have objection to it.  If I provided a link to a source to show how I got the information to create it, would you object any further?  Comparing time spent with Wikipedia and time spent trying to get a good freeway sign picture is a false analogy as access to the internet for some is much more convinent to access to a freeway with a digital camera (and a driving friend) at one's side.
 * If you look at the picture gallery, there are too many US-based signs compared to the counterparts of the other countries. In that case, why don't we try to be fairer and have one sign per country.  That is one sign (regardless if it is an exit or guide sign) for the US, one sign for Saudi Arablia, etc.  That should do the trick reducing the number of signs in the existing gallery.  Please resist the temptation to unilaterally make drastic changes.  I'll try my best to find other people to get their input. Allentchang 00:33, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) I don't think we need two rows or 8 pictures of guide signs to illustrate what freeway guide signs look like.  4 is enough. I would limit it to American guide signs, American numbered exit signs, Swiss (to show how some countries put the lights on top instead of below), and either Chilean or Saudi Arabian (to illustrate how some countries use blue instead of green).


 * 1) I'm thinking about dismantling the gallery altogether and going back to a group of small right-aligned pictures to illustrate various aspects of freeways.  The gallery is just too big as it stands, sitting right there in the middle of the article.

I'm raising these issues now to see what other people think. In a couple of weeks, if no one responds, I'm going to be bold and do some pruning. --Coolcaesar 17:11, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


 * And I will try to watch you as well even though I am busy at TSMC. Allentchang 17:50, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll accept it if you choose to eliminate one of those Taiwan freeway exit signs (two's a crowd after all). Here are two additional links that you might find interesting.


 * Chinese announcement about changes in exit signs (with pictures)

I should stop paying attention to the wikipedia these days especially with too much stuff at work, but oh well. . . . Allentchang 18:04, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * JPEG images (as well as CAD drawings) of most Taiwan freeway signs

The United States is overrepresented in this article. To counter systematic bias, we should give equal coverage to the different geographical regions of the world. We shouldn't exclude Taiwanese sinage simply because there's Chinese on them: if anything needs translating, the translation should go in the image caption (since English is also on the signs, translation is not necessary in the caption).

Let's say we limit the sign images to one per country, and insert some non-US freeway images, such as those provided here.--Jiang 10:52, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * My issue is not so much with the Chinese content of the signs, it's with the underlying law governing them. Unless the ROC has a Web site somewhere with their entire legal code and any accompanying regulations translated into grammatically correct English, it's essentially impossible for non-English users of the English Wikipedia to verify that any diagrams allegedly based on those regulations are accurate.  Automatic translation services like Altavista Babelfish are of little help because regulatory law requires a thorough understanding of the source language's idiomatic features.  In contrast, the U.S. federal government maintains the official copy of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices online, and its equivalents in many English-speaking countries are also available online.


 * That's why I prefer photographs of signs, because the government employees who make the signs have presumably interpreted the underlying regulations in doing so.


 * The point is that I don't mind diagrams of highway symbols (as in Foothill Expressway) where the symbol and what it represents can be easily verified against the underlying statutory law. For example, the entire text of all 29 California Codes and the California Code of Regulations are available online.


 * But when we have users from non-English speaking jurisdictions supplying diagrams into the English Wikipedia that may or may not represent the appearance of signage in their jurisdictions, it is much more difficult for English Wikipedia users to fact-check them, and therefore such diagrams smell much more strongly of original research (which violates the "No original research" policy).  At least photographs are still difficult (relative to diagrams) to fake, which decreases the possibility that someone could play a practical joke.


 * On another note, I am strongly considering dumping the gallery altogether to get rid of silly disputes like this (since the gallery is far too big anyway), and going back to the conventional left-right-left Wikipedia sequence of small illustrations scattered throughout the article. --Coolcaesar 23:44, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

There are plenty of English Wikipedia users who are fluent in Chinese. Are saying they cannot be trusted to tell us that these signs indeed conform to the regulations? --Jiang 03:15, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * No. I'm trying to think about this like a lawyer. The problem is that if we allow this, then it will create a precedent and then people will say "me too!"  What about languages like Arabic or Indonesian or Thai, where the number of fluent speakers in the U.S. is probably much smaller?  I'm worried about the risk of someone posting a diagram of a "freeway sign" with a politically incorrect message in a foreign language as a practical joke (while claiming that they simply want to help make the article more international) and then we end up with another John Seigenthaler episode, only this time it's right under our noses and even more embarrassing for Wikipedia.  The point is that you have to look at a decision's long-term ramifications along with the short-term ones.  Again, photographs are much harder to fake.


 * While accuracy is important, it should not be done to the point of overwhelming nit pickiness (ie, this is off by a few inches or this may be a san serif font, but still not the right font, etc.). Click on the link to the Taiwan freeway sites that I posted on the discussion page: the computer-drawn diagrams of the signs they include are strictly speaking not exactly like their originals in terms of font size and spacing.  Still the information they provide on the signs are correct and there is probably a good reason that they did it that way rather than to take photographs of those signs.  I find it difficult that a simple exit sign could convey politically incorrect message.  An exit is an exit regardless of language.  A mileage number is a mileage number regardless of language.  The city of Sanchong does exist and can be reasonably found in the www.freeway.gov.tw Taiwan area freeway site to be served by the freeway without any political connotation.  The John Seigenthaler episode deals with something that is blatantly and undeniably wrong.  While I admire that you share the founder's desire to make Wikipedia at least respectable as the Encyclopedia Briticannica, the comparison you make between John Seigenthaler and freeway signs is a bit extreme.  Freeway signs are seldom if ever controversial; the circumstances of JFK's assasination are extremely controversial.  Both freeway signs and the cause of JFK's assasiantion require burden of proof, but in the case of freeway signs, one only needs reasonable burden of proof where as in the case of the circumstances of JFK's assasination, one needs an anal amount of proof (not even the Warren commision could solve this). Allentchang 16:35, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Dude &mdash; you really lack imagination when it comes to practical jokes; try watching Saturday Night Live sometime if you ever get the chance. I'll have make painfully obvious what I thought I had strongly hinted at above.  What if someone posted a "diagram" of a supposedly Saudi Arabian freeway sign, and claimed that it said "King Saud International Airport 2 Kilometers" when it really said something profane in Arabic about the religion of Islam?  Or what if it was an obscene remark about President Bush's private parts?  No one would know for weeks or months &mdash; until a road geek who happened to be able to read both English and Arabic (or some other similarly difficult language) stumbled across it and pointed it out!  That scenario is the kind of disaster I am trying to avoid here.  In contrast, at least the John Seigenthaler scandal came and went relatively quickly because the offending content was written in English.  --Coolcaesar 08:19, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * You assume the entire global English speaking audience watches Saturday Night Live. If I didn't leave the United States at the age of nine, perhaps I would have lived in suburbia, be infused with American pop culture, and would constantly say "Dude."  But no: I moved to a foreign country and learned other perspective of things that prevented me from having what the Soviets used to sarcastically call the "American Sense of Humor."  Your American-centralism has already been revealed through the words "Dude" and "Saturday Night Live."  However, you may be able to take some solace by the fact that a global edition of the "Daily Show" is now being showed on CNN International (although most Commonwealth countries prefer to watch BBC).  You do not need to worry about those Chinese signs that I posted because first, I ***AM*** revealing who I am rather than to hide myself under some sort of anonymous IP address or using some sort of ego-sounding alias: I am making myself fully accountable for what I have posted.  Second, I have tried to invite respectable users like User:BenjaminTsai, User:Jiang, and User:Wikibofh to join the discussion here.  Having a community discussion about this issue helps determine if the information on the freeway sign diagrams are accurate rather than some pratical joke inspired by some American live comedy show. Allentchang 16:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * They also look a lot more professional, which is why both school textbooks and encyclopedia (at least in the U.S.) use photographs as much as possible. They use diagrams only for things that are hard to photograph, like subatomic structure or the movement of electric current.  My concern is also about making Wikipedia look more respectable (that is, look like an encyclopedia), so that all people will take it more seriously.  --Coolcaesar 03:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * How would you define "professional"? Should we replace all the non-photographic images of the freeway shields in all the Interstate articles with a photographic ones?  After all, there are probably hundreds of thousands of freeway shields out there on the interstate system which one can easily take pictures of. On a technically, the interstate numbered shields (See Image:Interstate_238_(California).svg for instance), aren't exactly like what they are supposed to look like because they were optimized for Wikipedia viewing experience!  Based on your logic then, they should be removed because legally they are as controversial as John Seigenthaler.  (See how extreme the analogy you've made?) You shouldn't dismantle the freeway galleries, as there are plenty of freeway enthusiasts out here.  If you feel unusually strongly about this, you **could** consider moving all those images to the Wikipedia Commons.  The only reason that I have taken interest in writing stuff about the Taiwan freeway is because most stuff about the US interstate system has already been written, including my the route of my constant bewilderment: Interstate 238. Allentchang 16:35, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Allen, you obviously haven't been following this discussion very closely. If you scroll up a few paragraphs, you'll see that I already stated that I have no problem with non-photographic images of freeway or expressway shields in the United States, because their appearance is easily verified against the underlying federal and state laws by the English-speaking users of the English Wikipedia (since all federal statutory law and almost all of state statutory law is freely available online).  In contrast, the Republic of China has made no effort to make at least some of its statutory law available online in English.  The same goes for most other countries.


 * But you have made **no** comment what so ever about the English links that I have provided from the Taiwan freeway site. Granted that there are one or two links that I have provided that are not in English, please comment about the links that **do** provide English information and tell me if those links should be reasonable sources of verification.  Remember, regulations and standards are meant to be reasonable and allow some creativity and innovation rather than to be as strict as a straight line. Allentchang 16:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Please carefully read what other people are saying before you respond. I have not made an extreme analogy; you have, because you failed to read all of my text carefully.  I'm not sure if this is because English is your second language, or because the ROC doesn't teach close reading of texts in its school system.  If you have no idea what I'm talking about, see New Criticism and close reading.  Close reading is a mandatory subject in high school English courses in the U.S. state of California and many other states.


 * I could fire back by saying that you may have some difficulty with comparison and contrast / analogy skills. Also in any journalism class, one learns that community standards towards certain things changes according to context.  Standards on how to deal with information regarding John Seigenthaler are **way** different compared to standards dealing with the representation of freeway signs.  If you insist on applying the same John Seigenthaler standards on all non-controversial articles on the Wikipedia, then we're gonna have a witch hunt here.  Even the Surprme Court has admitted in the past that the definition of pornography and obscenity varies according to context and community standards see the article on "I know it when I see it.  I doubt that you meant to make a personal attack on me, but the first time I read your suggestion that English is my second langauge or that the ROC doesn't teach close reading of texts, I really felt personally offended.  I've grew up in Arizona first and then went to Taipei American School when my parents went to Taiwan.  As for close reading, I would say that the senatorial representative from California-- Barbara Boxer-- needs to learn that skill in her debates rather than to create red herrings.  But of course in a full-circle irony, you'll probably say that my last statement in itself is a red herring!  Read my posting above for the Saturday Night Live comment. Allentchang 16:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * As for the other issue, the fact that a lot of freeway enthusiasts like the gallery, I wish to remind everyone that Wikipedia is not just for road geeks, but is an encyclopedia intended for a general worldwide audience. After much personal reflection, I have reluctantly realized that the gallery is simply too road geek oriented at present and should be dismantled (even though I created it).  I agree with Allentchang that most of the media should be transwikied to Commons and I also agree with Jiang that the article should reflect a variety of freeway designs from around the world.  --Coolcaesar 08:19, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

To take your slippery slope argument to the extreme, we should ban all forms of non-English words from Wikipedia. Try deleting the Chinese (中國) at China, the French (République française) at France, the Thai (ราชอาณาจักรไทย) at Thailand, and the Arabic (المملكة العربية السعودية) at Saudi Arabia because if we allow any foreign languages into Wikipedia, people are going to insist on inserting foreign terms into obscure topics like Gelao and there will be no way for the average English editor to verify that the foreign script included is not a "practical joke". While you're at it, nominate Yuan (surname) (a FA) for deletion because just about all the references that were used exist only in Chinese, and if we allow people to write articles consulting any non-English language sources, who knows what kind of "practical joke" they will pull next by claiming they got their bogus information from a respectable source.

Please use some common sense here: There are users we can trust, and users we cannot. When a user we can trust posts something, citing a foreign language source, we can be confident that this user is not trying to pull a "practical joke" on us. When some red-linked user comes in and posts something fishy, we hold them to a higher standard and ask for better verification. This is not that difficult to do - it is how Wikipedia works. People insert crap here (in English, without consulting any source) all the time, and IP addresses and users come under greater scrutiny than users who have either many edits under their belt or a distinguished record of scholarly prose.

That said, for the signs I prefer photographs for an article like this, but graphic images in country-specific articles. I also support linking to a gallery on commons instead of using one here. --Jiang 08:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Another thing to consider is the (unlikely) event that the Wikipedia has a printed media version. The signs on some of those pictures are way too small to be seen. They need to be cropped and blown up.  Maybe this has something to do with my days in high school journalism . . . my journalism class received a lot of criticism for showing pictures that were difficult to phantom because the objects in the pictures were just simply too small to see. Coolcaesar, if I unintentionally made you feel extremeley offended, my apologies in advance.  But through discussion, we get to know each other's background, get some ideas clarified, and celebrate the freedom of speech (which is an extremeley rare gem these days).Allentchang 17:18, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Apology accepted, and I apologize if I went over the top with the close reading comment (I've been very busy lately with a lot of things on WP, including an unpleasant flame war in Talk:Bar examination). However, getting back to the point, I'm glad that Jiang agrees with my position, including my view that the article looks more professional with photographs.


 * As a long time amateur graphic designer (and former layout editor for my high school newspaper about a decade ago), I don't see the issue of signage being unreadable as a real issue. First, Jiang and I agree that the gallery should go and should be replaced by what was here before (pictures of various types of freeways scattered throughout the article in accordance with the Manual of Style alternating left-right-left convention).  Thus, the readability of signage becomes much less of an issue.  If you disagree, Allen, we can always hold a straw poll (and post a notice about it on the village pump), but I suspect that most editors (especially non-road geeks) would prefer to get rid of the gallery.  Next, as for the issue of laying this article out in paper format, I doubt that the Wikimedia Foundation would literally shoot off a couple of hundred articles straight into an imagesetter without proofreading the final layout first.  Even if the thumbnails are too small, they can always be adjusted in the final layout, and one has to keep in mind the sharp difference between 600-dpi offset lithography output versus 75-dpi on the typical monitor.

Finally, as for the details in images, I've come to realize (after trying to talk to many people about freeways over the years) that the vast majority of human beings are not interested in learning about the various minor differences between freeways around the world &mdash; such as the MUTCD two control city rule, the requirement of mandatory shoulder barriers in some countries versus the soft shoulders common in rural North America, blue versus green guide signs, etc. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, which implies compactness, not a comprehensive compendium. As long as the photos show general features, like medians, multiple lanes, and overpasses, I believe that's enough to get the idea across. --Coolcaesar 05:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, to give you another perspective on things: I have a friend who used to work at the Daily Cal and his job was to create graphics and drawing diagrams from scratch.  Sometimes he created graphics of things that I felt could be easily represented by a photograph (for instance, a graphic of a DJ operating on equipment and an explanation of the controls on the equipment), but I felt that the graphics looked good enough that I as a reader wouldn't make a big deal of it.  And when you look a newspapers, news agencies like Reuters and AP occasionally use graphics to explain certain events when they could have easily took a picture of for instance a ballot box, a group of protestors, or pictures of birds in an explanation of bird flu.
 * If there are controversies in the Wikipedia about certain information, we use this discussion forum to examine the validity of the information just like a Congressional hearing on Capitol Hill. This discussion form in itself helps establish the validity of certain things in the sense that if we have a lot of experts on a issue talking together, a consensus among the experts should be enough to establish validity


 * However, as one Wikipedia critic pointed out, sometimes we sell consensus as reality even if it clearly isn't. This is especially true when most of the respectable contributors don't have a PhD in certain fields of interest whereas the contributors of brand name paper encyclopedias do.  A lot of information about Taipei could be challenged by outsiders because my credential is being a long time resident of that city who treats Taipei like New York City rather than some person with a PhD in urban planning or Taiwan history.


 * Still, I can be pretty stubborn. Please go to, look at the ENTIRE page, and see for yourself that my exit signs are unlikely SNL pranks. Allentchang 02:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Not everyone owns a car in Taiwan, especially in Taipei. Owning a car in California is a near given.  If I had acess to a car, I could easily take pictures of the freeway.  But no: I take public transportation.


 * Here's another way to think about things: the article about the Taipei subway says that subway announcements are made in Mandarin, Southern Min, Hakka, and English.  There is a law that gives this language/dialect requirement which is in Chinese rather than English.  No information about the nature of the subway announcements are given in the Taipei metro website.  Would I have to strike the four language/dialects claim from the record if I don't provide an audio recording of this as evidence because I can't provide the statute regarding this in English?  Finally, most Republic of China laws state that if there is a conflict in interpretation between an avaliable English version of the law and the Chinese version of the law, the Chinese version shall be surpreme.  Then we wouldn't able to fully trust the English version of the law if it was provided on the website (which HAS given foreigners headaches in Taiwan).  So even if I were able to find a copy of the laws governing freeways in the Republic of China in English, it wouldn't be ultimately accurate.  I'm just trying to be like those so-called "activist justices" on the Surprme Court who interrupts you and asks all sort of hypothetical questions.  And then we could argue that some of those justices might do selective close reading of things rather than thourough close reading of things depending on one's political leanings.  The point here is that having everyone thinking like a lawyer on the Wikipedia  ultimately isn't practical here and defeats common sense and good faith.  I'm just continuing to bring the issue up here because I think you might face similar issues like this on many other articles you might edit on the Wikipedia.  I won't stalk you on the other articles, however because that would be a very unhealthy, mentally disturbing activity on my part.  So I will only make my point here with respect to the freeway signs. Allentchang 16:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, okay, you made your point with regard to the authenticity issue. But I'm still not clear on what is your current position concerning the final outcome with the Freeway gallery.  Will you join Jiang and me with regard to our position that the gallery should be eventually removed and replaced per my discussion above, or do you prefer to keep the gallery?  If you want to take the latter position and oppose us on this issue, then following Wikipedia tradition, we'll have to hold a straw poll to determine the consensus of interested editors.  --Coolcaesar 10:03, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Please...
I've seen the phrase "toll freeway" in too many places. It's kind of annoying to me, and also, it defeats the purpose of the word "freeway". It's a tollway or toll road if you have to pay a toll, and it's called a freeway if it's free. Sorry about the fuss that has nothing to do with anything, but still, it kind of bothers me... --209.34.20.194 22:42, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


 * No, that's a colloquial usage. As stated in the article, the dominant position held by American civil engineers (and the lawyers and government bureaucrats who work with them) is that a road is a freeway if it's free-flowing.  --Coolcaesar 23:10, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually I was just reading through some California statutes at the library and I figured this out. The word "freeway" in the sense of allowing traffic to flow freely goes all the way back to the 1930s.  The original version of California Streets and Highways Code Section 23.5 as created by the California Legislature in 1939 was as follows: "'Freeway' means a highway in respect to which the owners of abutting lands have no right or easement of access to or from their abutting lands or in respect to which such owners have only limited or restricted right or easement of access."--Coolcaesar 18:27, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Planning a massive rewrite
I am thinking about doing a massive rewrite of the entire Freeway article as I successfully did with Lawyer two months ago.

Here are the major objectives I am considering, please comment:

1. Kill the gallery, which is TOO BIG, looks ridiculously amateurish, and intimidates the general audience (non road geeks), who care more about what a freeway is than how it looks. Switch to one photograph per country except where multiple terms are in use, then two as necessary to distinguish. For example, the freeway/expressway distinction in the United States is best illustrated by one photo of a freeway and one of an expressway.

2. Move the grossly large section on motorcycles in East Asia into a separate article as was done with bicycles on freeways. The vast majority of Wikipedia readers do not care about details like cubic centimeters; the section goes into far too much detail like a four-year-old high on meth. It is sufficient to say that "motorcycles are generally allowed on most freeways, with the unusual exception of certain countries in East Asia, see this other article for more information."

3. Add the "citation needed" superscript flag to all major unsupported assertions to encourage research as needed to support those assertions. Since I have already graduated from law school, I no longer have free access to international content on LexisNexis. It would be helpful if our foreign editors can research and find the statutes and regulations that define "freeway" or its equivalent in their countries, especially since many countries have not codified their laws properly, made them freely available online, or translated them into English. --Coolcaesar 18:45, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * It has been almost one month. Here goes.  The article will be changing dramatically shortly.--Coolcaesar 19:23, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Done. I hope I haven't shot too many sacred cows.  If anyone has an issue with what I've done with the article, discuss it here.  --Coolcaesar 20:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I have started writing additional motorcycle restrictions around East Asia when I have known the Taiwanese ban. Your page split is fine and I have added specific speed restrictions there. A few countries impose lower speed limits upon motorcycles, but it may not be safer when faster cars have to overtake them frequently.--Jusjih 05:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * One more story: as a large image gallery may not be good here, Wikimedia Commons is much better for this purpose.--Jusjih 01:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

World First Freeway
The wolrd first freeway was built in the 1924 from Milano to Varese (and other 2 branches to Lake of Como and the Lake Maggiore). It's know in Italy as Autostrada dei Laghi and have a total lenght of 77 Kms.


 * That doesn't sound right. I've been crazy about freeways ever since I could talk and I've read practically every book on their history available in western North America, and no source has ever mentioned such an outlandish claim.  The earliest freeways are usually stated to be the German autobahns.  Also, I've actually driven on that particular autostrada linking Milan and Lake Maggiore (yes, I took the picture of Stresa for Wikipedia) and most of that autostrada, judging from its architecture, was apparently built after the 1950s.


 * Indeed, if you trace this article's history I researched and provided most of the citations currently in the article. Do you have a citation to a particular page in a respectable book or history journal to back up your assertion? --Coolcaesar 20:24, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * If you have a good reason to believe the quote is wrong, it is a recommended practice to remove it from the article page and move it here until the dispute is settled. Nova SS 21:28, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

---

that's sound right. totally! the Milano Laghi was built between March 1923 and September 1924 when it was opened the Milano-Como. in the September 1925 was opened the branch to the Lake Maggiore. In the amazing site there is the complete history of the world first highways (not only the first of the world...but also many others were built in few years). the site is in Italians, but there are many beautiful shots of that Autostrade took in the 20's.

http://www.storiadimilano.it/citta/milanotecnica/strade/autostrade.htm

the first German Autobahn (Koln-Bonn) was built and opened in the 1925, so, 1 year later than the Milano-Laghi. before south of Berlin was built a 12 miles race track, but not sure an Autobahn! http://www.destination360.com/europe/germany/autobahn.php http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/AVUS

This is the cronology of the Italian Freeways (Autostrade)


 * 1924 MILANO-LAGHI (Milano-Lake of Como; Milano-Varese)
 * 1925 MILANO-LAKE MAGGIORE
 * 1927 MILANO-BERGAMO
 * 1927 ROMA-OSTIA
 * 1928 NAPOLI-POMPEI
 * 1931 BERGAMO-BRESCIA
 * 1932 MILANO-TURIN
 * 1933 FIRENZE-MARE
 * 1933 PADOVA-VENEZIA

All that freeways are still active. (largest of curse!)

this are the first results with Google.

Autostrade, which built the world's first toll highway in 1924 between Milan and Varese, manages roads in Italy... http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000085&sid=aKi5AYjAMh24&refer=news_index

Riccardo Starace of Autostrade SpA tells us the Milan-Varese-Como motorway - 85km (53mi) - is generally regarded as the world's first toll motorway. It opened to traffic on 21 Sept 1924, and is now part of the Autostrade SpA network of 3400km (2100mi) of tollway... http://www.tollroadsnews.com/cgi-bin/a.cgi/an7lzpcFEdiRW6r2jfFwDw

Communications. Lombardy has a highly developed communication network, where Milan is the most important road, railway, airway junction. In Lombardy was opened in 1925 the first in the world highway Milan-Laghi. http://www.italycyberguide.com/Geography/regions/lombardy.htm

In 1925, Italian road engineers came up with a new idea. They created a 30-mile speedway between Milan and Como that was reserved for motorists and had no intersections. The name: autostrada. It is said to have been the world's first superhighway, the granddaddy of the Interstate highway system in the United States... http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B0DE6DE1031F935A15757C0A961948260&sec=travel&pagewanted=all

La première autoroute au monde (en italien, autostrada), l'autoroute des Lacs a été créée pour relier Milan à la région des lacs, en 1924 (77 Kms). http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autoroute

Die Bezeichnung Autobahn wurde erstmals von Robert Otzen im Jahr 1929 geprägt. Otzen war Vorsitzender des Autobahnprojekts HaFraBa (Autobahnprojekt Hamburg–Frankfurt am Main–Basel). Bis dahin sprach man von Nur-Autostraße. Die erste Autobahn der Welt war die AVUS, die 1921 eröffnet wurde. Die erste längere Autobahn der Welt wurde 1923 in Italien eröffnet (Mailand–Como). http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autobahn


 * I don't trust most of those Web sources since most Web sites are so unreliable. However, I have verified through ProQuest that the New York Times citation is correct and I have modified the article accordingly to reflect the Italian contribution to freeway development.  I will run the term "autostrada" through all the major databases when I have the time and add more information (cited to English-language sources) about the first freeway being built in Italy.  --Coolcaesar 05:18, 18 May 2006 (UTC)