Talk:Pan Island Expressway

Highways: Asia Low‑importance

	Roads portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Highways, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of highways on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HighwaysWikipedia:WikiProject HighwaysTemplate:WikiProject HighwaysHighways
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Asian Highways Task Force.

Singapore Mid‑importance

	Singapore portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Singapore, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Singapore on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SingaporeWikipedia:WikiProject SingaporeTemplate:WikiProject SingaporeSingapore
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Pan Island Expressway. 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.

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 15:28, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Exit 27/28

A ramp has been built on PIE congesting Exits 27 and 28. Eastbound is Exit 28 to Clementi Ave 6, Westbound is exit 27 to Toh Tuck Rd.

Can you please fix the exits section to this page? 128.194.2.11 (talk) 20:54, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting of junction table

Hi all, I've been working on reformatting the junction table as per WP:RJL for PIE, and I'm hoping to standardise the junction tables for all other SG expressways as well. There's a couple of things that I either couldn't really decide on or made a judgement call to add it to the table currently, so I'll list out every point of inquiry here in order to start a discussion about how we can come up with a standard for SG expressway junction tables:

I also noticed that prior to 2022, the junction tables were formatted this way: http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Pan_Island_Expressway&oldid=1019698681, until it was reformatted to be more in line with WP:RJL.

Pinging User:R22-3877 since you also worked on the junction table previously. Also CC User:Rschen7754 to see if you have any inputs!

Exit numbering

There are quite a number of exits such that the westbound and eastbound exits have different numbers (like Exits 3A/3B, or even Exits 12 and 13 which are completely different numbers). The previous iteration used the exit numbers for the westbound direction in the Exit column, and mentioned the eastbound exit number that is distinct in the Notes column. Example: Exit 12 | Signed as exit 13 eastbound.

I think there's no WP:RJL guideline for this from what I can see so far. I found that the previous convention was confusing, so I went ahead to put all the exit numbers in the same column.

However, if we choose to split the rows, this would not be a problem (see below).

Row splits

In the case of Exits 4A and 4B, they're joined on a single row, but Exits 8A and 8B have separate rows.

As per WP:RJL:

If there are two exits in an interchange, one for each direction of the crossing road, they should generally be combined into one row, unless this would complicate matters.

...

If two interchanges with different roads have the same number with different lettered suffixes, they generally should not be combined.

Same exit number, same letter suffix, different rows

An alternative which I've seen is on Interstate 295 (Rhode Island–Massachusetts) Exit 1B, which are split into two rows, with a merged cell in the Exit column:

The northbound exit is signed for Route 2 north – Cranston, Warwick Mall: street view
The southbound exit is signed for Route 2 – Warwick: street view

They are arguably on the same interchange and have the same exit number, but have different destinations, and yet they are on different rows.

I'm using this as a possible counterpoint to the proposal I am making (see below).

Proposal

In view of the above, I'm in favour of the following:

Different exit numbers: Separate rows
Same exit number, different letter suffix: Separate rows
Same exit number, same letter suffix, different destinations: Combined into one row, with each destination list suffixed like (eastbound) / (westbound) on each line under the Destinations column
Same exit number, same letter suffix, same list of destinations: Combined into one row

I haven't yet made changes to the junction list to follow this proposal, to avoid unnecessary significant rework from changing rows in the table.

Interchange names

As per WP:RJL:

This column should follow the exit/junction column for highway systems which have named interchanges. Use only if the interchange names are in common usage in the region and are not purely ceremonial names.

In the SG context, I believe this corresponds to the names of our flyovers. I'm not sure if it would pollute the table if we went ahead to include it, so I haven't done so yet. I think this was previously included in past versions of the article, so I'm not sure why we won't include it.

Destinations

I added the icon next to each exit which connects to another expressway, in line with other junction lists. Additionally, I also abbreviated the expressway names, as per WP:RJL:

If the agency responsible for the highway system of a road appearing in the junction list abbreviates the name of that type of highway in its official documents, use that abbreviation.

I also added the icon for Changi Airport connections, since I can't find an SG icon readily available anywhere.

For expressway connections that are found on the signage like ECP (City) or TPE (SLE), I omitted the part in parentheses, because even though it denotes how to get to another expressway indirectly via said exit, it pollutes the junction table. We could also choose to add this additional information under Notes, but I didn't do so.

For exits with distinct westbound and eastbound destinations, I split them up into separate lines, suffixed with (westbound)/(eastbound) at the end of each line. I also preferred to put the westbound destination first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chee Cheong Fun (talk • contribs) 04:19, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I don't know if there's an authoritative source of destination names that should be included. So far the only ways I can think of are from:

Looking at Google Maps Street View
Referring to the article on SgWiki

Location column

I added the location column as per the URA Master Plan to determine the approximate planning area that the westbound exit leads to, as opposed to the entire interchange (which often straddles the border of two or three planning areas, or each exit could be in different planning areas). If anyone has a better idea do let me know.

km/mile markers

I used Google Maps to estimate the rough km/mile marker for each exit based on the westbound exit (or entrance if there is no exit) like this. If anyone knows a better way to do this, or perhaps even a more reliable source (like from LTA) do let me know as well.

Junction template

Once we sort out the standard, I'm also looking to create a junction list template like {{Template:JPNint}} to help standardize the format across all pages.

There's still lots of other unclarified points, but this covers the most general ones I have so far. I hope this starts a meaningful discussion. Cheers! Chee Cheong Fun (talk) 04:11, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead to make some changes as per WP:BOLD: http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Pan_Island_Expressway&oldid=1189980844

I find that after adding the flyover information, it makes much, much more sense to split the rows, such that we only really combine rows if they have the exact same exit numbering with distinct destinations.

The Notes column shall be merged since it usually discusses the exits on the flyover as a whole. Additionally, I unmarked some rows as incomplete access since it was apparent that the interchange was indeed complete, since different exit numbers can exist on the same flyover.

Chee Cheong Fun (talk) 05:46, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Chee Cheong Fun: Regarding the exit/flyover names, I couldn't find a source for them back when I did up the junction table, so I believe it would be better to remove them. In addition, WP:RJL states that the flyover names should only be included if they are in common usage. In addition, if exits have different letter suffixes, but service the same destinations, I would combine them. The rest seems fine. R22-3877 (talk) 08:46, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, thanks for the reply! We can see the flyover names on OneMap (they also have their own entries now), but there's still some room for interpretation since there are some interchanges with multiple intersecting flyovers (for example, the complicated interchange at Exits 12/13), so I'm not sure if it's sufficient.

I believe flyover names are quite commonly known in Singapore, no? I'm not a regular driver in Singapore but even I know some of the more flyover names near my home. There's also a couple of other examples of common usage that I found with a cursory search:

Marymount Flyover to be shut from Oct 8 for construction of North-South Corridor (Straits Times)
Freakish accident at Braddell flyover (Reddit)

As for combining exits with different level suffixes but service the same destination, good catch on this. I only found one instance (Exits 16/16A both connect to Lorong 6 Toa Payoh). The rest I will not be combining since the destination names have some degree of variability between them.

Thanks! Chee Cheong Fun (talk) 09:06, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Chee Cheong Fun: While I do agree that flyover names might be commonly understood, they don't exactly correlate with the expressway exits (like for Exit 7B on the CTE, Exits 6, 8A and 8B on the ECP, or for the KPE's underground section). For these, would you just be leaving the field blank? R22-3877 (talk) 02:35, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@R22-3877: Yes. The way I see it is that these exits do not have a corresponding flyover because they are at-grade, or because they are underground. For such cases (which are the minority), they will be indicated with an em-dash (for example, see Exit 18 on the PIE). For exits on tunnel ramps that are named on OneMap, I will include it under the Flyover column (although this way, the term "flyover" might come into contention now, so perhaps we should rename the column). As an example, see Marina Coastal Expressway#List of interchanges and exits, which I recently also reformatted to follow the same style as proposed above.

My rationale for including the flyover is that majority of exits on Singapore expressways are located on grade-separated roads, and this is crucial for knowing whether to group multiple exits on opposite directions of travel by determining if they are exiting and entering from the same flyover. This would allow us to determine whether the interchange is incomplete or not. For example, Exits 27 and 28 on the PIE might be treated as a pair of opposing exits for each direction of travel and have the same set of destinations, but they are located on distinct flyovers, and each of these flyovers have a distinct name on OneMap. As such, these two are not considered to be a group, but separate, incomplete interchanges.

Lastly, I make this comparison between flyovers and interchanges in highways in the US. Why I think MOS:RJL does not recommend including interchange names is because the interchange names are purely ceremonial in nature, and as such have names that are named after people rather than having anything to do with the township or location itself, and thus they aren't actually used in common usage (albeit this is based on my personal experience while living there). For some examples of these interchange names, I found this list for officially named bridges/interchanges in California by the DOT: [1], skip to page 173. On the other hand in Singapore, we do in fact refer to the flyovers by name quite regularly (perhaps because they are actually named after the planning area/township in question).

Chee Cheong Fun (talk) 06:24, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]