Wikipedia

Talk:M-6 (Michigan highway)/Archive 1

< Talk:M-6 (Michigan highway)
Latest comment: 7 years ago by InternetArchiveBot in topic External links modified
Archive 1

Facts

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Uhm can we just delete the last comment. I only know of one bridge that had to be redone and that was due to some issues with the design or something. Cant remember exactly all that it entailed but it barely affected the opening the freeway. All it did was force traffic off onto 8th Ave for a month or two. I drove on it like a month later and everything was opened. --Mihsfbstadium 18:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I just looked at the recent change in the facts. Although it is accurate for the most part. One part still troubles me. That is the "Costing MDOT millions of dollars". According to the article it only stated that fixing it was top prority and that finding about cost and blame was secondary. --Mihsfbstadium 13:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Traffic Counts

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I was curios as to the amount of traffic M6 has been diverting and well I found some info on mdot. According to thier info M6 is handeling anywheres from 25k to 45k vehicles in spots. These numbers are from the 2005 counts and the 2006 should be out sometime in the future. The higher counts are near 131 with the ends getting closer to 25 to 30k. In anycase looking at I96 and I196 I found some interesting info. First 96 before the split with 196 no longer has the 105k car limit. Its closer to 95k. 196 has also seen some reduction. With just some quick math I believe its down 10% as well. With some further research I am sure to see that local road 44th street (1.5 miles north of M6 and 2 miles south of M11/28th street) is cut down by half. Speaking of M11 that one has seen some nice reduction as well. I dont remember the numbers but it too was signifacant. In anycase I would like to see in a few years what the actual numbers look like but after Chicago Dr Exit gets completed in the next few years on 196 I expect to see 96 and 196 underconstruction. But in anycase I am quite please to see this reduction of traffic. Its quite bad to see 100k cars in a day on 4 to 6 total lanes of traffic. --Mihsfbstadium 10:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Various Edits: May 26, 2008

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Ramp Flaw

I removed the following point for several reasons:

*A major exit ramp flaw exists on the highway, confusing many out of town travelers as well as locals. Going west on the highway there is no way to get onto 68th St. at the US-131 S.exit. It takes you to the 76th St. exit and you have to get back on US-131 going north to access 68th St. When traveling east on MI-6 the US-131 S exit shows a clearly marked ramp to 68th St.

First, it's not a "major" flaw—it's not a "flaw" at all. A flaw is a mistake or problem, whereas this one movement (of sixteen possible movements) was purposely omitted due to safety and confusion considerations. Mind you, while a ramp to facilitate a connection from westbound M-6 to 68th St would benefit me greatly, I'm glad it was omitted. There are enough people who fail to understand the basic cloverleaf design of this interchange, which is personally alarming, as cloverleaves have been an intregral part of highway design for 70 years. If people are confused by a simple cloverleaf interchange, imagine trying to squeeze in yet another ramp into this already rather complex interchange! Second, the phrase "confusing many out of town travelers as well as locals" has no citation. I have not heard or read anything of the sort, and I live three miles from this interchange. Third, the grammatical and syntactical structure of this point was very poor and would have required a complete rewriting if it were to remain. Fourth, the fact that a "clearly marked ramp" from M-6 eastbound to 68th Street exists has nothing to do with the lack of a similar ramp for westbound travellers. In fact, it contradicts this point completely—if a "clearly marked ramp" exists eastbound and not westbound, why would there be any confusion? If a motorist made an incorrect assumption, that is their own flaw. Anyone who makes an assumption that all interchanges on all freeways in all locations are full interchanges will be quickly shown how sadly mistaken they are.

I-296 Designation

The following statement really should be removed. I would've done it, but I assumed someone might have a major problem with it, so I'll let someone else do it.

Hence, there is some speculation that the highway may be re-designated as I-296[citation needed]. However I-296 is actually already internally assigned as an unsigned 3.4-mile (5.5 km) segment of US 131 between I-96 to I-196. Further dampening this possibility is the fact that the Michigan Department of Transportation has a long history of constructing and maintaining freeways outside of the Interstate highway system.

The speculation that M-6 may someday become I-296 exists solely among a few (quite literally a few) individuals on a highways-related Internet newsgroup. MDOT has never hinted at such a designation, nor have any calls for such a change come from local citizens or civic leaders. I'm thinking an encyclopedia article is not a good place to report that a couple people once surmised aloud that such a designation change could take place. If anyone has thoughts to the contrary, I'd like to hear 'em.

Other Edits

In addition, beyond basic grammatical and syntactical corrections, I changed the photo caption from "Wilson Avenue flyover" to "Wilson Avenue overpass" as this is a simple overpass structure—there is no flyover at this location. I also corrected the caption for the photo taken between Byron Center and Ivanrest Avenues (a better locational description, as it is nearly two miles east of Wilson Avenue at that point) as being in Byron Township. The City of Grandville is several miles away at this point and M-6 never enters that city, let alone entering the City of Wyoming which lies between M-6 and Grandville.

CBessert (talk) 05:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Photo edits and thumbnail realignment

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have cropped each of the four photographs included in this article to remove the copious amounts of sky and clouds in each and to increase the area of the photo concentrating on the subject matter at hand.

I also aligned the cropped photo thumbnails all to the right side of the article. While it's generally accepted that varying the placement of images in an article is a good thing, here the article is so short and dominated by non-paragraph elements (lists, bullet points, exit lists, etc.), that having randomly placed images made it really hard to read. Plus, since the images have been cropped, they fit below the info box much better.

I believe the article flows much better and is more readable with the photos both cropped and realigned. CBessert (talk) 06:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Assessment

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This article contains all the big four, even if some of them are lacking. It's up at C-class. CL — 01:14, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

"This article lacks a conmprehensive discussion of the controversy surrounding its construction."

Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

I have removed that tag from the article. There are six paragraphs totaling approximately 900 words of content about the controversies from the 1970s, 80s and 90s leading up to the construction of the freeway. The other subsections of the current freeway's history discuss Geoffrey Feiger making the South Beltline a campaign issue in 1998 as well as a summary of the negative reaction to M-6's completion. If anyone has suggestions on what might be lacking in that content, please add specific comments here. Otherwise, I'm satisfied, as were the FAC reviewers, that the article is comprehensive. Imzadi 1979 → 19:11, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I know that there are 900 words, but that is inadequate to cover the topic. Can you please include additional discussion in the article? What were the position taken by the major parties? Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 19:18, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
This article passed FA, which means it is Wikipedia's best work. It is assured that the controversy surrounding the construction of M-6 is adequately covered without going into too much detail. Dough4872 19:19, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
This is borderline WP:POINT. --Rschen7754 19:26, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

South Beltline name

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

One might want to take another look at the "South Beltline" name. I live near M-6 and have never heard it called this recently. The name is more often used as a casual reference to 28th street, hense the Beltine Bar situated on 28th. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.235.175.185 (talk) 13:57, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I also live near M-6 and the name shows up in articles in The Grand Rapids Press as well as on the Kent County Road Commission road map. It might not be as common anymore as M-6, but it is still in use. Imzadi 1979 → 20:22, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

19.000 miles or 19,000 miles?

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

The way it is written now this highway is nineteen thousand miles long. Is that correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.226.124.112 (talk) 12:25, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Where are you seeing that? Everywhere in the article seems to correctly state a figure of 19.696 miles... —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 14:49, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
In English, we use "." for decimals, thus "19.000" is nineteen, and not nineteen thousand. –Fredddie™ 05:10, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on M-6 (Michigan highway). 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:

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

 Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 11:12, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on M-6 (Michigan highway). 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:

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

 Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 11:14, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on M-6 (Michigan highway). 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:

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

 Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 04:21, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:M-6_(Michigan_highway)/Archive_1&oldid=1136973561"