Talk:Pacific Highway (Australia)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Coopernook to Herons Creek

Coopernook to Herons Creek section will start soon in mid-2007 and be finished by December 2009. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.168.57.62 (talk) 05:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC).

Bulahdelah bypass

Still seeking planning approval, no updates as yet. Once this is open to traffic, you can "enjoy" two lanes (on each side) from Sydney all the way to the Oxley Highway interchange at Port Macquarie.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.168.57.62 (talk) 05:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC).

Speed Limits

• Completed all sections of highway from Port Macquarie to Brisbane.
• Many transition speed limits (ie 80km/h before towns) not included.
• Fixed speed camera locations added and some road hazards eg roadworks, kangaroo zones, sharp bends, steep incline/descend etc.
• This section could include other road conditions or notes relating to those sections, possibly add km marker and link to images.
• This should reflect actual present driving conditions & speed limits. Planned or expected upgrades should be noted within an existing segment, it is not logical to show as an additional segment. When (if) completed, then the segement updated as appropriate.

--Advanstra (talk) 17:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Alphanumeric Symbols White 1 shield and the "North Coast Motorway"

The "white 1 shield" is still in the gazette and has NOT been changed to A1 or M1 between Hexham to Barona Point in Tweed Heads. By the way where did A1 come from? the whole Pacific Highway once upgrade to 100% dual carriageway standard by 2016 it will be called the "North Coast Motorway". So it should be called the M1. An A road is single carriageway.

I'm getting mighty annoyed with people putting alphanumerics up before their time. Alluding to what it currently is by means of "formerly" is not on. Until I see an RTA document telling me ANM road signage is on the go, it stays as old road markers.Timmah86 05:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Given evidence has finally been discovered for this system, RomRulz 424 is currently rebadging highway articles with "proposed A1 replacing 1" and so on. However I have not seen any source regarding the name change in 2016 to North Coast Motorway and as such the reference to it has been removed Timmah86 (talk) 05:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Raymond Terrace bypass vs the Roundabout at Hethebrathew [sic]

A recent edit[1] changed "Raymond Terrace bypass" to "the Roundabout at Hethebrathew" [sic]. I've reverted this change because it's inaccurate and confusing.

The speed limits in this area are different in each direction. The southern limit in both directions is about 1km southwest of the Heatherbrae (the correct spelling) roundabout in Heatherbrae, at a place commonly known as Motto Farm. Heading northeast, the 70km/h zone finishes at the roundabout, which is still in Heatherbrae, and is where the Raymond Terrace bypass starts. In the opposite (southwest) direction the 70km/h zone starts about 900m northeast of the roundabout, on the bypass. There's no common name for this area, which some people think is in Raymond Terrace but is actually in Heatherbrae. It's therefore more accurate and less confusing to simply say that the northern limit of the 70km/h zone is on the Raymond Terrace bypass (which is true) than stating the northern limit is the roundabout, which is not true when you're heading southwest. --AussieLegend (talk) 06:27, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The 100 zone northbound is on the bypass some distance (100m to 200m I think) after the exit from the roundabout, so the limit change in both directions is north of the roundabout. Oh, and I'm pretty sure that Motto Farm is on the western side of the highway towards the southern end of Heatherbrae (with Heatherbrae on the eastern side), then it becomes Heatherbrae on both sides further north. --Athol Mullen (talk) 08:22, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I forget to mention the short 80 km/h zone north of the roundabout between the 70 and 100 km/h zones which further proves the point. You're also correct about Motto Farm which, interestingly, isn't actually a defined place anymore.[2] It's now just part of Heatherbrae although everyone naturally still refers to that part of Heatherbrae as Motto Farm, even though Motto Farm was actually to the west of the highway as you stated. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:57, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't remember there being an 80 zone in either direction between the 70 and 100 north of the roundabout. I'll try to remember to check when I drive through there on Tuesday. --Athol Mullen (talk) 01:16, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

When the bypass was opened in 1998 the speed limit from north of the roundabout to the Botanic gardens, in both directions, was 80 kmh. Eventually the speed limit in part of that section was reduced to 70, creating the zones we have now, but there was one small section on the northern side of the roundabout that was still 80kmh. I don't know when it happened but I checked today and the 80kmh sign north of the roundabout has gone so the speed limit there is now 70 as well. Nice of them to tell the locals that the speed limit has been reduced. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:41, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I was well aware of the reduction to 70. The lower limit applies from just south of the Heather St intersection through to the bypass. It was reduced due to safety issues at the roundabout and at the heavily-trafficked Heather St T-intersection. I don't even remember the short 80 zone north of the roundabout that you mentioned. --Athol Mullen (talk) 14:39, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

As I said, the whole section used to be 80kmh. When they reduced the speed limit to 70 they must have forgotten to change the limit in that are, or maybe they just forgot to take down the 80 sign. It's not unusual around here. It's surpising though. There seems to be a strong desire to increase travelling times between Raymond Terrace and the Hexham bridges. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:21, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps that's so that the F3 to Raymond Terrace freeway link will make a more significant improvement in travel times? Cynical, aren't I? --Athol Mullen (talk) 00:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Inaccurate opening paragraph

"It is 1,025 km (637 mi) long and links..." and at the end of the paragraph claims: "Today, only 40% or 250 km (155 mi) is dual carriageway and 10% or 78 km (48 mi) is under construction." Forty percent of 1025km is 410km (not 250) and 10% is 102.5km(not 78). Thus one of the purported facts presented is false or outdated. Please remember to cite sources when providing such information.

Assuming the total length of 1025km and either of the purported facts in the last sentence are correct, the last sentence of the paragraph should read: "Today, only 40%—or 410km(255mi)—is dual carriageway and 10%—or 103km(64mi)—is under construction." or "Today, only 24%—or 250km(155mi)—is dual carrigeway and 8%—or 78km(48mi)—is under construction." IBstupid (talk) 01:53, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

The section originally had a citation but sometime last year it was moved. I've restored it but the figures need sorting out. According to Travelmate the distance between Sydney and Brisbane is 926km, the article says 1,025 and the citation mentions 679km, which I assume is appears to be the distance between Raymond Terrace the southern end of the highway at Black Hill and the end of the Tugun bypass. I'm confused and I have to dash out for now. --AussieLegend (talk) 02:21, 11 October 2008 (UTC) --AussieLegend (talk) 00:24, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I've updated the previous paragraph after checking the citation and travelmate again. Obviously this needs to be corrected in the article. --AussieLegend (talk) 00:24, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

The reference points to the RTA Pacific Highway upgrade site. On that site the RTA says the Pacific Highway is 679 km long, with 277 km being dual carriageway. So, I suggest the opening paragraph be totally reworked, with the correct information provided. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RichInSydney (talk • contribs) 10:56, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Alphanumeric numbering

The alphanumeric numbnering system has not been introduced yet, so it is still National Highway 1 rather tham the A1. It is not known when the RTA will introduce alphanumeric numbering.Quaidy 04:45, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Despite this, no new signs have been erected with National Route numbering on all new sections since about 2007, nor have they been coverplated with National Route 1 shields. All new roads either have M1 or A1 designation as seen on Tugun Bypass, Ballina, Yelgun to Brunswick Heads, Nabiac (In the last case it seems the coverplate/tape has been removed by RTA). Is it time we accept that since no new signs have been erected with the National Route shield that the route is now known as the M1/A1. This also applies to the Hume Highway and most other routes across the state.

[magpieshooter] ^T_C 08:51, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

They are also referred to as being implemented in the RTA annual report for 2007, which is just the queue that was required for the changeover, according to opinion on this page. [magpieshooter] ^T_C 09:05, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

No it doesn't. I suggest re-reading your source.Page 43. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.88.20.56 (talk) 00:59, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Injured or maimed?

The article says "perhaps over 10,000 people have been injured or maimed on the highway throughout its history." What is the difference between "injured" and "maimed"? --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 05:59, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

If you believe the dictionary, to be injured is to have been wounded or caused physical harm, while to be maimed is to have been wounded seriously, to have permanently lost function of a limb or part of the body. To address that with this specific topic in mind, to have smacked your head into a windscreen or broken a leg is to be injured, to have been decapitated as your head went through the windscreen or to have had the leg amputated is to be maimed. --AussieLegend (talk) 06:19, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks. But then if one can add insult to injury, does this mean one can add injury to maiming? --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 06:41, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Projects under contruction:

Port Macquarie to Hexham

• Karuah to Bulahdelah Sections 2 and 3 – Under construction, will be completed in October 2009.
• Coopernook to Herons Creek - Project approval obtained, contruction expected to start in mid-2007 and be completed by December 2009.
• Bulahdelah upgrade – Seeking planning approval, no updates as yet.

Coffs Harbour to Port Macquarie

• Bonville upgrade – Under construction, will be completed in September 2008.

Ballina to Coffs Harbour

• Ballina bypass – Under construction, will be completed somewhere in 2012, because of the very swampy area aroud the proposed bypass 'alignment'.

Tweed Heads to Ballina

• Tugun bypass – Complete.
• Brunswick Heads to Yelgun (and the Brunswick Heads bypass duplication) – Complete.
• Sexton's Hill, Banora Point Upgrade. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.211.75.236 (talk) 09:33, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Is the F3 part of the Pacific Highway?

I'm just throwing this out there but, according to this RTA map, it would seem part of it is not. The F3 is definitely part of Highway 1 but it would seem that the Pacific Highway still follows the route it always did. It's certainly signposted as the Pacific Highway, while the F3 is not. This would seem supported by content at project pages such as the F3 Freeway to Raymond Terrace upgrade. This would also account for the distance discrepancies mentioned above. --AussieLegend (talk) 23:19, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

The F3 is not part of the Pacific Highway. In relation to the upgrade, they are talking about the distance from the end of the F3 to the QLD border. U8701 (talk) 07:06, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

That's what I thought. The article, however, seems somewhat confused over the matter. --AussieLegend (talk) 07:46, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Safety - (Urunga incident in particular)

User:Wandjin, I appreciate your enthusiasm on updating the article, and also note that what you've added seems to me largely correct. However Wikipedia:Verifiability (i.e. references, citations etc.) for contibutions need to be provided, even for the contributor is a witness. This is perhaps what AussieLegend is pointing out. Also ensure that what you add has a Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. There was a lot of media coverage of the Urunga incident, including on channel 7 online, so that shouldnt be hard to find material to back up what was written, but remember some sources are more reliable than others. While youre at it, the article could be improved somewhat with references for the other contents of the safety section (stats etc) and perhaps improve the section content itself (i think a table of deaths/injuries etc for each year would be useful). Also, if you or someone happens to have a photo or two of the scene that they took themselves (not too gruesome), they could be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons and added to the article, images benefit Wikipedia community a lot. Lets stop the Edit warring and discuss the Safety section here instead. --Advanstra (talk) 12:04, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Accident statistics

The statement "Many accidents occur on the Pacific Highway." needs to be qualified. Accidents occur on all major highways, do an unusually high number occur on the Pacific Highway? How about some statistics? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Takaitra (talk • contribs) 12:04, 6 July 2004 (UTC)

Good point, but yes, an unusually high number of serious accidents do occur on this road considering the traffic volume. A citation and better some stats would be good. Andrewa (talk) 21:22, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't add up

The length is listed as 960km.. But in the 'Current Status' is says 333km is single lane in each direction and it says that 333km is 50%.. Am I calculating something wrong, or does that not add up?

--Kaotac (talk) 23:21, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Related Move Proposal

Just to let the editors here know, there is a move proposal in place to rationalise the titles now that the Pacific Motorway sections have been named. This will affect this article, as the Pacific Motorway information in it will be moved to one of the new articles (Basically everything north of approx Ewingsdale [near Brunswick Heads]).

Discussion here: Talk:Sydney–Newcastle_Freeway#Move_Proposal

-- Nbound (talk) 23:21, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Warabrook etc

The infobox was modified today, splitting the road into multiple sections, according to information from RMS. It appears though that this information isn't correct. For a start, the highway never actually passes through Warabrook (which the RMS incorrectly calls "Warrabrook"), instead it skirts its eastern border with Mayfield West with the highway completely in Mayfield West. The borders may be seen at SIX Maps The south end of this section is shown as Industrial Drive, but this leaves a large, missing section into Newcastle. From Industrial Drive, the highway continues via Maitland Road, which becomes Hunter Street, Newcastle on a railway bridge at Hamilton. From there it continues to the intersection of Hunter Street and Stewart Avenue. To my knoledge this has never changed. Maitland Road has always been dual-named as both "Maitland Road" and "Pacific Highway". Ironically, this was confirmed officially today when my son received a fine in the mail from the SDRO. He was pinged doing 72kmh past a well known speed camera on Maitland Road, which the fine listed as "Pacific Highway". The camera is on Maitland Road, 1.7km from where the RMS says the Pacific Highway ends at Industrial Drive. I'm extremely sure of this as I drove the signposted Pacific Highway on 6 September. I even have plot of the entire route, all 190.84km of it. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:18, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Just to clarify, where is the camera exactly? Is it part of the highway stated in the RMS information? Sorry cause I don't live in the Hunter region. Marcnut1996 (talk) 22:07, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

The highway alignment reservation does pass through (or at the very least borders onto) Warabrook, just the physical lanes of road itself do not, so as far as the RMS is concerned it passes through Warabrook, or it may have been chosen for a different reason. The other section of the road AussieLegend refers to is actually Main Road 464 which was declared only recently in 2010. Its likely that any signage stating otherwise is old or incorrect signage. We need to defer to the most reliable source, and that is the gazetted definition, which is the one presented in the schedule, but you can also check out the 23 April 2010 NSW Gazette (pg. 1965) to see it as originally listed, and the associated changes in the area. As a compromise it might be appropriate to list both suburbs by citing both sources -- Nbound (talk) 22:46, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

The speed camera is, according to Google Earth, at 32°53′32.02″S 151°43′47.67″E, 1.62km south-east of the Industrial Drive intersection. The western side of the road reserve near Industrial Drive is the border between Warabrook and Mayfield West, none of the road reserve is in Warabrook so it would be incorrect to say it passes through Warabrook. It's not just a matter of signage, authoritative documents, which I viewed at the Newcastle City Council offices, show Maitland Road is still dual-named. These included Deposited Plans as well as a few other things the council staff showed me. Unfortunately they don't appear to be online so I can't give a reference. The speed camera photo caption identifies the road only as "Pacific Highway, Mayfield West",[3] while the fine notice includes Maitland Road. Driving the highway the other day, I noticed that all of the bypassed sections that I passed had been renamed "Old Pacific Highway", but Maitland Road has not so, while it may not be part of the "Pacific Highway" as now gazetted, it is still the "Pacific Highway". Very confusing. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:35, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

When it comes down to it, if its not gazetted as such, its not part of the highway... and the gazette makes it very clear (in both the HW10 and MR464 entries) that it is not. Its only a very recently gazetted change so its quite likely that the plans you have seen were based on older information (when it was definitely correct!), most land administration and similar maps are only updated periodically or as required after major changes. It might be worth mentioning the article that remnant Pacific Highway signage still exists along the roads that make up MR464 (if you can find a way to cite that) -- Nbound (talk) 04:17, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

After finding a few more silly mistakes in the schedule, Im thinking we should now stick with just Mayfield West as far as the location goes. No change of opinion on the HW10/MR464 thing though -- Nbound (talk) 11:57, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

It's not just signage, as I've earlier said. The speed camera clearly identifies the road as Pacific Highway and the Penalty Notice is even more specific. It identifies the location as Pacific Highway, Mayfield West between Werribi Street and Tourle Street[4] so, even though it's not part of the gazetted route (that part of the road is more than 1.1km from Industrial Drive), it's still verifiably part of the Pacific Highway. I'm not sure how to explain the gap in the gazetted route though. I know why the gap exists (funding) but verifying it in accordance with WP:V is more difficult. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:30, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

The gazette is the most reliable source for where the Pacific Highway runs. The speed camera isnt. (Even forgetting all other arguments - the schedule is August 2013, while the camera has no known date when it was last updated - its likely a relic of pre-2010 when it was the Pacific Highway). WP:V is fine as far as the gap. The gazette (and the schedule's compilation of them) are the most authoritative sources we have on the matter. Saying the gap is due to funding is an assumption (not to mention an admission of its existence), another could be that the currently officially unnamed highway (Newcastle Inner City Bypass, HW23) could be redesignated as part of HW10 when its completed to an appropriate standard (Its unlikely, but we cant prove it incorrect, we wouldnt report on it because its OR on my behalf). We have to put as little value judgement on this as possible, and report what is shown in the appropriate sources. I know you feel it should be part of the current route, but it isnt (its definitely not the only split route out there - there are multiple even within NSW). And its the facts like this, that make people say "that's weird!"; which contribute to great articles. -- Nbound (talk) 14:51, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

KML File

I've created a KML file (see Template:Attached KML) and added the KML file to the Pacific Highway article. The co-ordinate data is from OpenStreetMap and is based on the southbound carriageway (shouldn't be an issue unless really zooming in). --Advanstra (talk) 02:53, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

• The KML file is useful for the article in a number of ways, it can show:
  • Path of current highway segments
  • Alternative routes for the highway (eg Sydney-Newcastle Freeway)
  • Path of the many projects or planned routes of future highway segments (eg Tintenbar-Ewingsdale)
  • Old historical alignments of the highway (eg Wooton Way, Tweed Valley Way)
  • Points along the route including: other Wikipedia articles, towns, interchanges, rest areas, bridges, fixed speed cameras, points of interest, wildlife crossings, (add more here)
  • Altitude information including profile, highest point along a highway segment
  • Distance information including kilometre markers and accurate lengths of segments

• The current status of the KML file:
  • Ewingsdale to Hexham (in various sections) --Advanstra (talk) 03:03, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

• Upcoming Improvement to the KML file:
  • Clean up text in placemarks
  • Simplify the co-ordinate paths where possible
  • Add Hexham to North Sydney

• Note:
  • As always feel free to amend and improve it, but make sure you know what you're doing. Even some minor format errors can cause the whole thing not to render on the mini-atlas or Google/Bing maps.
  • There is often a delay for changes to be rendered on the maps, and the prior version is often still in a cache, so the article need to be refreshed for the mini-atlas, and the Google/Bing maps also need to be refreshed.
  • The KML data can also be downloaded and rendered on other maps or converted to GPX etc and used on GPS units.

What has happened so far

• Section 1 was completed in 2006, just north of Karuah (an extra 11 kilometres of dual carriageway). Section(s) 2 and 3 left to do between Karuah to Bulahdelah.
• The "almost" completed section (expected very soon) of Bruswick Heads duplication of the bypass to Yelgun upgrade.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.168.57.62 (talk • contribs) 06:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Article internal consistency

I'm not overly familiar with NSW geography, and I know that there have been enthusiastic discussions about the naming and extent of the roads described in the Pacific Motorway (Sydney–Newcastle) and Pacific Motorway (Brisbane – Brunswick Heads) articles. I'd like to try to avoid reigniting those debates, but highlight some of the problems with this article anyway. It should at least be internally consistent. To start with - how long is it, where are the ends, and where does it go in between?

• lead: It is 960 kilometres (600 mi) long and links Sydney, the capital of New South Wales, to Brisbane, the capital of Queensland, approximately paralleling the Pacific Ocean coast,
• Infobox map: appears to agree with the lead: 960km, Sydney, Brisbane, coast
• Infobox route numbers: 960km from the Pacific Motorway at Ewingsdale to North Sydney
• Infobox major junctions: Brisbane to North Sydney
• History: Sydney and Brisbane
• Current status says between Sydney and Brisbane, then the list starts at Brisbane and goes to Sydney
• The Four lane dual carriageway status table seems to run from Tweed Heads to Mayfield West, and I can't work out how to interpret and collate any of the numbers. It needs an explanation of what they mean and what rows or columns should add up.
• Projects table runs north to south (but only in NSW), tabulated by distance from Sydney, but since the table above appears to indicate that realignments have different lengths to the original, it's not clear which routes are used to measure these distances. Is it more useful to remove the distances and use coordinates instead, with a multipoint/line locator map?
• Route description: Starts at Sydney Harbour Bridge, gives extremely detailed description to Hexham, then a sentence "From Hexham, the Pacific Highway (A1) passes up the NSW north coast to Ewingsdale, where it becomes the Pacific Motorway (M1)." for the rest of the route.
• Map by route description shows the north end at Brisbane, and the south end at Hornsby outside of Sydney.
• Speed limits are listed South to North, starting at Hexham and ending at Ewingsdale
• simulated road sign shows 931km from Sydney to Brisbane (and not showing Hexham or other places frequently referenced in the text of the article).
• Cities, towns and major river crossings are listed south to north (I think?)
• The cities with subheadings are not the same set as the cities in the list just above them.
• The attached KML file extends from Hexham near Newcastle to somewhere near Byron Bay, including several variant routes near the northern end.

It seems to me that the article should be written to describe the coast road from Sydney to Brisbane (as proclaimed in 1931). That could turn out to be a predominantly historic record, with references out to other articles about more recent detours and bypasses such as the Pacific Motorway or historic routes that have acquired new names (such as the Central Coast Highway). --Scott Davis ^Talk 13:19, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

And there's more - as we discussed at the move discussion, the Pacific Motorway doesn't start at Ewindsdale, it starts at Brunswick Heads, which is a few km away but that's irrelevant as the RMS source in the article says that the road extends from North Sydney, just north of the Sydney Harbour Bridge, to the NSW/QLD border.[5] Whether it extends into QLD I'm not sure, but it would seem to. The overall distance is unclear and seems to date back to some rather bizarre claims in the article from several years ago. It has been further confused by splitting of the road into 4 sections in NSW, without removing signposting from "deleted sections". Road signs seem to be modelled off the real road signs which, for some reason, ignore a lot of major locations while sometimes including locations that really shouldn't be listed. The kml file seems to repeat some points. It actually runs N-S but after "Bulahdelah-Hexham" it jumps to "Tintenbar to Ewingsdale (Under Construction)", "Ballina", "St_Helena_Tunnel" and "Harwood Bridge". I don't know why it starts where it does or finishes in the middle lane of the Pacific Highway after coming off the Hexham Bridge. (the end point indicates a car leaving the merge lane by crossing an unbroken line before then crossing two lanes and coming to a rest on the median!) These are just more issues that exist with this article. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:11, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I've updated the article description to reflect its actual 790-kilometre-long (490 mi) distance from the highway's North Sydney southern terminus to its Brunswick Heads northern terminus. At this point, the highway becomes a motorway and continues onto Brisbane. The former alignment of the highway, near Tweed Heads is now called the Gold Coast Highway. The distance calculated excludes the Wahroonga to Hexham section of the Pacific Motorway, and calculates the distance travelled where the Highway follows its traditional route through Gosford to Newcastle CBD via the Central Coast and the eastern coast of Lake Macquarie and the southern suburbs of Newcastle. References for the distance are obtained from Google Maps. What now is incorrect is the map in the infobox that seems to relate to Highway 1 between Sydney and Brisbane, and not the Pacific Highway. Rangasyd (talk) 05:51, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Speed limits (south to north)

Advanstra added this section in 2008, some eight years ago. This section seems unnecessary. For starters, it only focuses on that section of the highway north of Hexham, which is 77% of the total highway distance. Why not list every speed limit from North Sydney to Wahroonga; and then Wahroonga to Hexham? Secondly, the speed limits are listed in km/h only. If they are to be listed, they should also be listed in mph. Thirdly, there are no references to this section at all. And finally, the section adds little value to the overall article and makes it unnecessarily long and tedious. If it is to be included, I suggest that either the content be hidden until such time as it is complete or that the content is moved to its own page so as to remove clutter from the article. AussieLegend, your thoughts? Constructive feedback is welcome. Rangasyd (talk) 06:04, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Scope and related articles

Please see WT:AURD#Pacific_Highway for discussion on this article's scope, and how to handle related articles like Pacific Motorway (Brisbane–Brunswick Heads) - Evad37 [talk] 05:28, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Distances Sign

Road distances (in kilometres) of towns and cities along the Pacific Highway from Sydney. Town names in brackets are bypassed.

This sign has been here for a while but has numerous issues:

1. distances and towns bypassed are out of date

2. Should be clear that it is a depiction and not a real road sign

3. Should include Newcastle or Central Coast locations to be consistent

I'd propose to remove it, perhaps replace with a distance table in both directions, or the same details in the Major_intersections

Advanstra (talk) 23:23, 2 December 2017 (UTC)