Talk:M10 motorway (Great Britain)

Untitled

pcb21: thanks for the re-edit which I mostly agree with, but to say it is a 'motorway' in the 'south of england' are both over-playing its status. It is the remnant of a bad route selection and, strictly, is in the 'East of England' region (which would be even sillier to write!) VampWillow 23:18, 2004 May 8 (UTC)

I agree that it isn't much of a motorway, but if we don't call it a motorway, I don't know where the cut-off point between "spur" and proper motorway is. e.g. the M45 is surely a proper motorway. If the government calls it a motorway, we should probably too. I agree that "north of london" is better than "south of england". I felt your original first sentence needed a slight rewording but I did it poorly. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 23:28, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

Just realised we hadn't met before, so hi and welcome to wikipedia! Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 23:37, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

The M45 is a difficult one as it still has intermediate junctions, whereas the M10 (imho!) is only there because it got left behind in the move of the southern end of the M1 to Watford Berrylands (nowe J4). It wouldn't be built now, it doesn't have the traffic level to justify its creation, and is really only there as an emergency route to bypass the closure of the M1 should that happen. To me, 'mototways', including 'spurs' are intentional creations, and the A41(M) (now deceased), the M41, and a few other little stretches are accidents that don't deserve (or usually receive) the nomenclature of 'Motorway'.

ps. and a Hi to you to! VampWillow 23:54, 2004 May 8 (UTC)

Change of classification

"It is to lose its motorway status and to be reclassified as part of the A414." Can anyone actually point to a valid source for this, as there has been no local publicity and the A414 already exists. Were it to lose Motorway status one would expect it to gain a new linkroad at the Hemel end so that non-motorway traffic could access the route (there being no intermediate interchanges) and, again, there are no publicised plans to do this (not to mention the unjustifiable cost). I've only seen this mentioned on one of the UK roads' sites and nowhere else and very much doubt its likelihood. --Vamp:Willow 21:36, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It just shows you shouldn't believe all you read on the web! I've reverted my edit. rossb 09:22, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

nods - I'm not saying it isn't going to happen or might not happen, just that I've found nothing else to confirm that it is likely to happen or that someone is willing to spend the money on it. (ooh ... caveats!). As a motorway it would be paid for by the Dept of Transport, as the A414 it would be the local council needing to find the cash to pay for new road junctions, access roads, etc. --Vamp:Willow 11:16, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps This Statuatory Instrument can change VampWillow's mind. The M10 will lose its classification as a "Special Road" when the M1 widening works in the area are complete. A collector/distributor lane will be provided that will physically separate motorway and non-motorway traffic, at relatively small cost. Perhaps you shouldn't dismiss things without checking more thoroughly first!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.36.242.186 (talk • contribs)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on M10 motorway (Great Britain). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080126112253/http://www.iht.org/motorway/m1eastamat.htm to http://www.iht.org/motorway/m1eastamat.htm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.iht.org/motorway/m1m10m45.htm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.iht.org/motorway/m1m10m45.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:05, 28 May 2017 (UTC)