text:
Talk:XLR connector

Proposed change
Proposed change, right after the photo:

EIA Standard RS-297-A describes the use of the XLR3 for audio signal level applications. Before the standard was adopted, some audio equipment manufacturers reversed the use of pin 2 (properly the normal or "hot" input) and pin 3 (inverting input). This was generally not significant when using entirely balanced signal paths, since balanced outputs will have the same polarity as their inputs and no one will know the difference. But this could be a huge problem when going from balanced to unbalanced signals, as when using an unbalanced, XLR-equipped, pin-3-hot signal processing device (like older Klark Teknik compressors and gates) with a mixing desk that had unbalanced insert points and insert cables that wired the insert connnector's shield to pin 3. The result would be no signal whatsoever, unless one rewired the insert cable or made two special adapters to swap pins 2 and 3 for each inserted channel. Such problems were only exacerbated when using cables that were wired tip-send with a ring-send desk (see tip ring sleeve). It was much better to have a processor that also had 1/4" connectors. [Can you tell I had personal experience with this???]

The pin 2 vs. pin 3 debate was such an important and almost comical issue that, during at least one Audio Engineering Society convention in the late 1980s, one manufacturer (or the AES itself?) handed out spinny wheels, with a needle mounted to a piece of cardboard that was printed with a pie shape with pieces alternately labeled "pin 2 hot" and "pin 3 hot"--showing that whether a manufacturer chose pin 2 or pin 3 was seemingly completely random. [I can take a digital photo of this wheel if anyone is interested.]

But pin 2 is now the standard. Pin 1 is always earth, and many connectors connect it internally to the connector body.

 * I'm probably being dense here, but I don't understand the 3rd sentence: "This was generally not significant when using entirely balanced signal paths, since balanced outputs will have the same polarity as their inputs and no one will know the difference."

 * 1.) Why will balanced outputs always have the same polarity as their inputs? Also, 2.) if someone accidentally reversed the + and - (i.e. "hot" and "cold") signals when, say, wiring a connector, would this not cause that signal to be 180 deg. out of phase with all other signals?  I'd think that would be noticed when mixing the reversed signal with anything else not so reversed.  What am I missing here (e.g. what's about to really embarrass me)? Ob1-kenogle (talk) 06:07, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

--

Another proposed change, near the beginning:

The name XLR probably comes from the ITT Cannon part number. However, no one knows for sure why it was chosen, and debates about the origins of the name can be found in the archives of some of the major online audio communities. One helpful mnemonic to remember the now-standard wiring for an audio XLR connector (see below) is this:

pin 1 = X = earth/ground/shield pin 2 = L = live/"hot"/"normal" input pin 3 = R = return/"cold"/"inverting" input

In any case, XLR has become the standard name for these connectors, which are now made by many manufacturers apart from Cannon. Historically it is no more correct than the name "Cannon plug", which also continues to be used.

In earlier days there were lots of 'standards' so many in fact that 'standard' was an oxymoron. Whatever way you wire things the bottom line is for the signal of all the microphone outputs to react in phase with one another. If not there will be phase cancellation either general or frequency dependent. If the signals are mixed the recording is either degraded or ruined. Phasing can vary with the manufacturer or individual microphones, especially cheap ones. Good microphones are carefully checked for phase at the factory. The most notorious cable 'standard' was the Kudelski (Nagra) standard. You had to use special cables marked in red only for that recorder(Sound Recording for Motion Picture, Charles B. Frater Pg 44-45). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tvsterling (talk • contribs) 04:19, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Confusion
I believe the above mention of X being for earth, L being for Live and R being for return is what tends to confuse many young people in the industry and those visiting this site.--Tm1000 01:01, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

mini XLR
what is the official name for these connectors? sometimes called "mini-XLR": They are called micro xlr mainly used of lamps for large decks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.43.32.187 (talk) 19:16, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

http://www.ereca.fr/telec/422acces2.jpg - Omegatron 15:37, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

 * Switchcraft invented them and called them TINI Q-G. No one else does, but the partnumbers such as TA3F are well known. Meggar 05:45, 2005 Apr 22 (UTC)

Everyone seems to call them Mini-XLRs. The name 'TA3F' is used equally frequently; It is the usual way of referring to the ones used with wireless microphones where they are very common. I think they are becoming more & more important as electronic gear is becoming more & more miniaturized. There needs to be a section added to the article. Switchcraft calls them Mini-XLR & Tini-QG® too. They don't seem to be available in as wide a variety of styles as the standard XLRs yet. Here is a link to the Mini XLR section of the Switchcraft Web Site. http://www.switchcraft.com/Category.aspx?Parent=891 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tvsterling (talk • contribs) 03:28, 24 March 2014 (UTC) Rean call them Tiny XLR. I doubt any of these size-based names will matter much, trying to copyright or trademark them would be like trying to patent water, so any word that makes it clear that they are smaller than standard will work, because it's not likely anyone will need to invent one any smaller than these. Who'd be capable of soldering it if someone did? It's good enough for me that all the small-XLR contenders existing are aimed at fitting each other's connectors. 31.51.85.171 (talk) 23:50, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I have added a little bit about the Minis to the article. As always, please feel free to expand it and fill out more detail, or even make the Mini XLR a seperate article if you wish. I have only seen very few of these so far, on a boundary layer microphone and maybe one other item which I forget. They don't seem to be very robust, but as I have not had one break yet, I will refrain from making unproven remarks in the article! Tiger99 (talk) 13:02, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Can anyone indicate some early consensus on wiring? The small XLR's are not yet standardised, apparently, and the numbering of pins 2 and 3 reverses the the large XLR standards. When referring to standard XLR, should we preserve the orientation of pins, or the numbering of pins, when wiring the small connectors as we would the large ones? To put that another way, can someone with a long experience of these things suggest which notion is likely to be adopted long term by the audio industry? I'm not after a citation, if there is no standard, there cannot be anything to cite! But a decent prediction would be nice. :) Feel free to argue if you disagree with it, I'll check back here at times to see what consensus seems to grow, if any. 31.51.85.171 (talk) 23:50, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

 * How about this - http://www.aes.org/standards/blog/2013/2/aes66-2012-miniature-xlr-130211 ~Kvng (talk) 15:23, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

 * Given that it costs THIRTY DOLLARS for a non-member to even get a look at it, this is not a standard. It probably can't be cited for Wikipedia ever, because it's effectively a private publication. Like many such organisations, they claim a standard, but do not put it freely into the public domain, so they have only the vain hope that people will follow them into their own darkness. I'm more inclined to respect the advice (freely given when I asked for it) of Rod Elliott, of Elliott Sound Products in Australia, when he said that honouring the numbers rather than the orientation is less likely to go wrong. I agree with him because that would be easier to remember and notate, thus more likely to be done, hence conflicting with this is more likely to cause problems. Now, it's entirely possible that the AES came to the same conclusion, but that does NOT make it their standard, and it certainly isn't worth thirty bucks just to find out what they think. If they really cared, they'd do what Sequential Circuits did with MIDI, and publish it openly, and allow royalty free use of any of the published content. MIDI endures, and IS a standard despite many 'obituaries' written in the decades since it revolutionised electronic music systems. Closed publications behind paywalls will never be true standards, they're basically proprietary. They may agree with what becomes a standard, but they will not themselves be authoritative or citable. At best they may make a vague contribution to a consensus (as did the use of the RCA connector in audio systems), but nothing more. Rod Elliott no doubt knows of the AES, but he confirmed my statement that standards do not yet exist, so I doubt he accepts the AES as an authority either. 31.51.85.171 (talk) 16:46, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

 * I am a member and here's the deal: ~Kvng (talk) 18:51, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Pin 1:Shield
 * Pin 2:Positive left, positive phantom power
 * Pin 3:Negative left, negative phantom power
 * Pin 4 (if present):Positive right, positive phantom power
 * Pin 5 (if present):Negative right, negative phantom power

 * Thanks for saving me thirty bucks. Now just watch out for AES hellhounds on your trail... Looks like they agree that following large-XLR pin numbers is the way to go. It looks like common sense will prevail and eventually set a standard (after all, the demand for RCA plugs made them a standard, whatever RCA themselves may like to think). Do you know how the numbers 2 and 3 got swapped from original XLR format? That seems to me (and Rod Elliott) singularly stupid, and having no reason for it, and despite Neutrik fixing many old XLR problems, the genie may be out of the bottle on this one, so I doubt they can justify changing it back, and hopefully no-one will end up compromising technical specs sometime just to follow the numbers. I like using tiny XLR's for powered sensors, and fortunately the wireless mic convention looks ok to me, so I had no conflict in asserting 1=gnd, 2=sgn, 3=pwr for those. As to plugging into the wrong sockets, this is why on one chassis, there can be other types of socket. :) 31.51.85.171 (talk) 20:19, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

 * Pin 2 vs. pin 3 including history and consideration is covered in another AES standard ~Kvng (talk) 15:36, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

 * Well, I and other engineers find it silly, baseless, and I think paying the AES thirty bucks for the 'privilege' of knowing why is adding insult to injury. :) 31.51.85.171 (talk) 04:03, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

 * This is off topic but you're really harping on this so perhaps a response would be helpful. There's no cost to participate in AES standards development. If you don't like the decisions being made, feel free to participate and improve them.
 * The $30 charges only partially covers to cost of running the standards program. The rest is covered by general AES membership and sponsorships. $30 is quite low in comparison to other standards you have to pay for. I appreciate that a lot of standards are free and that's nice but these organizations don't run on air so some money has to come from somewhere. It is usually some combination membership or meeting fees or corporate or state sponsorship or charging for documents. There are tradeoffs with all these sources. Each standards organization chooses the balance that they believe is best for them and the industry they represent. ~Kvng (talk) 13:46, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

mono?
I assume XLR only carries a mono signal? kwami 11:27, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Yep. I guess it could carry an unbalanced stereo signal, too, like a TRS connector, but I've never seen this used in actual products. — Omegatron 16:22, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! kwami 23:36, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

The XLR-3 is used extensively in professional sound gear to carry a balanced mono signal. Stereo microphones most often has a XLR-5 connector, carrying two balanced signals. Examples of mics with this setup (not exhaustive): Royer SF24, Schoeps MSTC64.

The XLR-3 is used extensively in the UK (and probably the rest of Europe) for stereo connections from devices such as DJ dual CD players etc. to mixing desks and power amplifiers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 20.133.0.13 (talk) 10:50, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

 * XLR3 can carry a stereo signal if you use two cables - is that what those euro-DJ's use, or they get a stereo signal through a single XLR? That seems impossible, given the description.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flickharrison (talk • contribs) 18:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

 * Obviously, when an XLR is used to transmit AES/EBU digital audio, then it carries 2 channels on a single connector.132.185.160.98 (talk) 14:33, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

 * Would carrying mid/side encoded stereo on unbalanced lines in XLR3 cables have any advantages over unbalanced L+R stereo, regarding noise reduction or other details for which balanced lines would normally be chosen? I can already see one (the existence of a convenient mono signal when wanted), but are there any others inherent to the conversion back to L+R on arrival? I tried to answer my own question, and find a mixed answer... It looks like one channel may gain from common mode reduction, while the other gains a boost! On the other hand, both channels need a 6dB cut to restore original signal levels, so some noise reduction occurs, but the net result seems to be good common mode reduction on one resultant L+R channel only, none on the other, so I'll assume this is not a practical idea to try, and that unbalanced L+R throughout is better if forcing stereo through XLR3. 31.51.85.171 (talk) 20:33, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I've used XLR (three-pole) connectors for a long long time to carry stereo unbalanced audio, partly because as a hobbyist I had access to loads of cannon plugs & twin-screened cable, but only used domestic/semipro equipment. upon turning pro, I carefully avoided mixing the two types of connectivity. BUT I have an AT single-point stereo mic with a three-pole XLR connector at its base. so some manufacturers clearly thought this was ok to do too.

duncanrmi (talk) 20:49, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Common mode noise cancellation
Isn't the advantage of two inverted signals that the receiver can use them noise cancellation?
 * essentially yes as our balanced audio article says "Much of the noise induced in the cable is induced equally in both signal lines, so this noise can be easily rejected by using a differential amplifier or a balun at the input." Plugwash 19:37, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Not really. The advantage of two signals, one inverted with respect to the other, is that you get a higher SNR at the receiver by virtue of higher signal level - since the receiver sees live-return, and  return == -live, so the result is 2x live. But common mode rejection doesn't require that the "return" carry an inverted copy of the "live" signal! Common practice in a lot of the less expensive pro gear is to not actively drive the "return" at all, but instead connect it to signal ground through a resistor that matches the "live" terminal's source impedance. Noise picked up by the cable is then picked up equally in both conductors, and is cancelled by live-return. The "return" line is not required to be actively driven for that to work. This is called "resistor balancing" or "impedance balancing". Jeh (talk) 18:58, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

 * This is sort of off topic for this article. You guys might want to have a look at and consider improving Differential signaling, Balanced line or Balanced audio. -—Kvng 13:22, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree that it is off topic, but also just plain wrong. The signal level is only double, but you get an improved noise rejection factor of 100 or more, depending on the balance of the recipient equipment's inputs, i.e. its common-mode rejection ratio, which is vastly better than the effect of the increased signal amplitude. Gear with resistive pseudo-balancing is adding Johnson noise to the signal, and surely doesn't merit the title of "pro"? Tiger99 (talk) 13:08, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

 * No, it is not "just plain wrong", it is widespread industry practice. The driven equipment's inputs are still balanced, i.e. of the same impedance as each other, so the same noise is induced in both conductors; ((S+N) - (0+N)) cancels the N just as would ((S+N) - (-S+N)). You do lose the advantage of doubled signal level, and so you lose 6 dB of SNR... but on the other hand, the impedance-balancing technique does avoid certain pitfalls. (The two op-amps that drive the "hot" and "return" pins can never be identical, so the live and return signals are not actually symmetric; plug a TS plug into a TRS output with actively driven "return" and you short an op-amp output to ground; not generally a good thing; otoh a transformer-driven balanced out has to have "return" connected to ground if it's to drive an unbalanced input; etc.) As for Johnson noise, that is many, many dB below the signal levels of interest, even at mic level. It is a concern when building a 24-bit ADC or DAC (Johnson noise makes it essentially impossible to achieve 24 bits' worth of SNR in the audio band without cryo), but not when a "mere" 110 dB or so of SNR is sufficient. Anyway, do you think there are no resistors in the path of, and adding Johnson noise to, an actively driven "return signal" pin? Do you think the op-amp on the "return" pin adds no noise of its own? Transformer-driven balanced outs do avoid that issue. But those are very uncommon, as suitable transformers are large and expensive. See references 6 and 7 in the Balanced line article. Ref 6 is available online and provides an excellent description. Yes, actively driving the return pin has some advantages, but except for very long lines (he says 100m) the advantages are insignificant compared to the cost. Jeh (talk) 17:15, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry but you are wrong. Because it is "industry practice" does NOT make it right. Johnson noise most certainly does matter very much at mic level! But the HUGE problem with resistive fake balance is that, depending on the input of whatever you are driving, there is likely to be a MASSIVE increase in externally induced noise and EMC problems generally. I speak from practical experience with PA equipment, as well as my professional expertise as a circuit designer in the instrumentation field. I had extremely bad problems with a Mackie mixer and powered foldback speakers at a high profile venue, caused by common mode noise and the Mackie auxiliary outputs being only bogus balanced. (The spec did not admit that, it was only when I found the internal circuit on-line that I found that only the main mix had genuine "balanced" outputs, and that with resistors of woefully inadequate tolerance to do it properly. I had to urgently put isolating transformers in the lines. In any case you don't do it with op-amps nowadays, you use something like a DRV134 at the output and INA134 at the input, and if someone does ground the return wire, nothing terribly bad happens, you just lose the very considerable advantage of good common mode rejection.

The DRV134 and INA134 use internal thin film resistor networks of very high ratio accuracy to get their balance and CMRR, and despite claims to the contrary, no discrete design with op-amps will come anywhere near the performance, for less than 50 times the cost. Tiger99 (talk) 15:48, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

video??
the start of the article atm reads "XLR plugs and sockets are used mostly in professional audio and video electronics cabling applications. Home audio and video electronics normally use RCA connectors.". are xlr connectors used for video or just used along side video? (i've always thought it was the latter) --MilkMiruku 12:56, 21 April 2006 (UTC) your right with along side video —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.43.32.187 (talk) 19:17, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

 * I agree, I've never heard of XLR connectors being used for video, and they're not recorded as such in the AVconn template at the bottom of the article. I've removed this reference. I've also removed mention of power from the introduction, since they're no longer used for mains power (I don't know how common phantom power is now). Isidore (talk) 08:13, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

 * XLR cables are used to supply power to video cameras. It is in carrying power that they are used in video, not in carrying video signal. They also carry audio signal to video cameras, of course, and intercom signals to the camera operator. In these senses, especially power, XLRs are used "in professional audio and video electronics cabling applications". Binksternet (talk) 14:18, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Better photo?
The current XLR image has poor contrast as wells overshapening artifacts. Could it please be replaced with a better image or diagram?
 * post a better one here and we'll discuss it. Metal bodied connectors are a HUGE pita to photgraph well because some part of them almost invariblly ends up reflecting the light source directly into the camera. Plugwash 16:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

 * I found a better one on Commons. Doesn't show panel-mount though. I might try my hand at it, but not in the next few days...
 * A diagram showing the pinouts would be good, too. I'm a little confused about the case connection.  Is the standard trying to recommend a three-conductor+shielded cable? — Omegatron 01:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

History?
Can anyone tell when XLR was invented?

This link from ITT-Cannon is a PDF of XLR products. On page 4 they state that XLR was introduced in 1958. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.92.170.14 (talk) 09:25, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

 * There is now a page with some details about the development of XLR connectors at http://www.soundfirst.com/xlr.html Some of this information could probably be repurposed for this wiki page. --BenFranske (talk) 07:16, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

 * Ray Rayburn's page. He's probably among the top three guys in the world who would know. A very expert source. Binksternet (talk) 12:31, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Page currently says "The XLR connector originated from the Cannon X series of connectors in 1915;" That's not correct. Cannon was founded in 1915. I haven't found any information as to when the X connector was created. Is there any evidence that they existed pre WWII? Nottooloud (talk) 15:44, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

 * Someone using IP addresses from Chicago added 1915 last December with this unreferenced edit. I don't see any reason to keep that year in the article. Binksternet (talk) 16:16, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

XLR-LNE
I have uploaded picture of a XLR-LNE plug, socket follows shortly  --jmb 23:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

(I also have a EP-LNE and EP4 plug in my junk box if pictures wanted for any other articles. Sure I must have one of the old EP4 (socket) mains lead somewhere) --jmb 23:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Very cool. They're a little blurry at the front of the connector, which is the part we want to see.  Can you take more?   I've found that putting the camera in macro mode and then zooming in all the way works best. Maybe just the plug and socket by themselves without the paper behind?  — Omegatron 23:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

 * I will have another try later, trouble is the flash being above the camera tends to not penetrate into the pins. I will get a floodlight out and see if I can some more light with that.  --jmb 07:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

 * This one should be better. The trouble with using Macro is that it is difficult to get enough light into the front of the subject.  It is easier to get further away and then use zoom.  --jmb 08:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Yeah, my camera can be in macro mode and zoom in all the way, which works best for me. Allows more of it to be in focus.
 * This version is much better. Thanks.  — Omegatron 12:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Pictures
I found some more XLR connectors in a box of junk so Ihave taken some pictures. Leave someone else to fit on the main page if wanted. I have some XLR3 but you seem to have that covered OK. --jmb 15:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

 * Excellent! Thanks! — Omegatron 17:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

 * Awesome. -- Ned Scott 20:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

a request! You guys takig the photos, great! it helps us all, but PLEASE add something in there for scale (part of tape measure, euro coin, or US quarter, etc there. I have no idea how big or small these things are, come ot WP to learn! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.108.172.84 (talk) 21:44, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

(→XLR3 connectors - «+"XLR and 1/4' TRS combo jack."» not the best picture of a dark object.
I will see if I can borrow one (after Christmas probably) and take a brighter picture if not been done by then. --jmb 01:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

 * I can try to take a better one tomorrow. — Omegatron 02:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Signal vs. Chassis Grounds and Cable Shield connections
There seems to be a lot of confusion in the "end user" world about what to look for in XLR cables (as opposed to the XLR connections on equipment, which an "end user" can't practically change.

I added a small reference to that in the main page ... is there another reference that should be put there? Or another Wiki page that could also be referenced? My quick search didn't find one.

Here is a an external link to a longer note I wrote in another Wiki recently Bose Wiki Reference article on technical aspects of XLR cables

DanCornett 17:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

battery charger connector
The XLR is now the standard connector for battery chargers and mobility aid vehicles like wheel chairs and scooters. The female part is on the charger cable and the male part is build into the vehicle. Pin 1 is battery plus, pin 2 battery minus and pin 3 an inhibit signal which prevents the vehicle from driving while the charger is connected. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 91.33.174.22 (talk) 08:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC).

Pin 1
Deleted:

"Note that neither the standards nor manufacturers agree on the best way to handle the usage of pin 1 at both ends of a cable, particularly with respect to the cable shield, the connector's shell, signal ground, and a third cable wire connected to pin 1 — which may (or may not) be connected to the shield."

Err...third cable wire? Every balanced cable I have has a shield and one twisted pair. Pin 1 in the shield on cables, as specified by AES14-1992. AES48-2005 specifies exactly what to do with it in equipment, and good engineers have known the designs in that standard for decades (for example, the telephone network uses the same principles, runs hundreds of miles, and does not hum). Granted, there is some equipment that gets it wrong, and sometimes the problem can be solved by things like disconnecting pin 1 on one end of the cable, but to say that there is no standard or consensus is misleading and not helpful. How to design audio equipment interconnects and how to solve commonly encountered problems with them is not a topic to be neglected, and if it's to be discussed, I reckon it deserves an article of its own. provides a good overview of the problem. 70.9.137.32 21:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

There are audio cables with three conductors and a shield, at one time advocated by Neumann to permit the phantom power return current to run on its own conductor rather than the shield (particularly in fixed installations where there was sometimes no drain wire and only a foil shield). This can be a problem because most of the interference rejection of a balanced audio signal occurs by common mode rejection, which requires good balance between the two conductors and ground. It is easier to do that with a 2 or 4 conductor cable rather than 3. I have made some additions to the pin 1 discussion, hopefully it will be a little clearer. AES14, 48 and 54 actually make sense as a system when you understand the problem. Altaphon (talk) 20:49, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Preventing or minimizing Ground Loops is the main reason why pin 1 is usually lifted at one end (almost universally in studio audio chains). Chassis ground connections are very often at different potentials. Usually the first thing to do when a ground loop is suspected is to lift the shield at one end. Rane has an excellent PDF on the subject. It is different in every setup. I think Wikipedia already has an article on Ground Loops. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_loop_%28electricity%29 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tvsterling (talk • contribs) 03:49, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

That is just plain wrong. Pin 1 should never, ever be lifted. With proper circuit balance you will not get ground loop noise. Without the ground connection you will probably get common mode noise sufficiently large that it is not rejected by the circuit balance and you will get hum, as well as probably RF breakthrough. The only genuine area of confusion in practice is whether to ground the connector shells. That is because if you don't ground them by connecting to pin 1, you loose screening locally and are susceptible to RF, and to a certain minimal extent, local LF E-field. But if you do ground them, and they touch, between adjacent cables, or against other metalwork, you introduce spurious ground loops, usually intermittent, which may cause problems. (This only happens when you join cables end to end, at the equipment end they are obviously physically restrained and can't touch each other, and the grounds will be tied internally.) The correct solution is to ground the shells and fit clear heatshrink over the connectors, which will also nicely retain any labels you have applied. But then there is the problem of the release button on the female connector. You can often remove that, if you can live with not having positive locking, or in some cases leave the heatshrink unshrunk over the button. I note that none of the many XLR cables I have bought have the shells grounded, whereas all of those I made myself did. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiger99 (talk • contribs) 15:27, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

XLR-3-32 / XLR-3-31 Confusion
Hi I've seen a lot of references to XLR-3-32 and XLR-3-31, but haven't been able to find a definition of what they mean. I have assumed that one is female and the other is male and the 32 and 31 refer to the pinout. If anyone wants to clear this up, I would greatly appreciate it! 74.14.228.158 15:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * They are ITT Cannon part number detail for panel mount male and female three-contacts. Maybe we can add this link . Other mfgs have equivalent part numbers of course. Meggar 17:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Dimensions
Can someone please report the fundamental dimensions [eg. plug diameter, pin spacings & thier diameters, etc etc] of XLR connectors in the article - thank you --83.105.33.91 15:38, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

 * Unfortunately the drawings with those numbers are part of the IEC standard and subject to copyright. More unfortunately, many of the permissible values are so broad that there are many cases of supposedly intermateable connectors either failing to mate and latch, or being so loose as to rattle. Altaphon (talk) 20:56, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Round or Rubber?
Ray Rayburn says XLR is XL Rubber. User:99.233.87.254, a self-professed former Cannon engineer, says the R is Round. Can someone prove the XLR showed up before it had a rubbery pin strata in the female? Can anyone prove that the XL connector was already round? Either of these cases would go a long way toward settling the matter. Binksternet 05:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes. See Ray Rayburn's page. The X and XL connectors are both round. Altaphon (talk) 20:50, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Mnemonics
Does this section really enhance this article? It seems to be a bit close to trivia for my liking (Rexeltw (talk) 11:30, 19 February 2009 (UTC))

XLR Abbreviation
A google search using 'xternal live return' (XLR) gives many examples where this is taken to be the correct words for the abbreviation. I have also read 'xtra live return' (XLR), but I think this must be wrong, or possibly just not recognised. Personally, I don't think Canon XL with Rubber is correct: perhaps once it was, but no longer is, especially as companies such as Neutrik now use the label XLR. Richard Nowell (talk) 15:15, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

 * Thanks for your personal research and opinion. It is in conflict with the exhaustive research done by Ray Rayburn, a Fellow of the Audio Engineering Society. Binksternet (talk) 16:00, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok! Settled! As Mr. Rayburn points out, it has become a generic term, which I guess has various 'slang' labels. Perhaps 'xternal, live, return' is an abbreviation that points out what the function of each wire is- possibly for ease-of-use for non-engineers. I was not sure what was meant by the term canon-to-canon, but now I know. Thankyou. Richard Nowell (talk) 12:10, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

tell
what is long form xlr —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.220.143.5 (talk) 10:28, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

 * There is no long form, except perhaps Cannon X connector with Latch and Resilient neoprene around the female contacts. Binksternet (talk) 05:44, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

 * I think that's right. Personally I have never seen Xternal Live Return mentioned before looking at this talk page, and it doesn't appear in any standard I know of on the topic. Altaphon (talk) 20:54, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Parallel powering information
The phantom power section (which appears to be lifted straight from phantom power) says:

"This is in marked contrast to another, slightly earlier method of powering known as parallel powering or T-powering (from the German term Tonaderspeisung), in which DC was overlaid directly onto the signal in differential mode. (emphasis mine)"

I'm confused how parallel powering is different than phantom power (from a wiring point of view, I don't know what voltage it ran at, nor do I think it matters). Could anyone provide more information (and if so, phantom power should probably be updated first/as well). And since I'm new to adding to discussions, what's the proper way to cross-post (if it is proper) this request to phantom power? Velowiki (talk) 16:47, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

 * Cross posting seems appropriate Talk:Phantom_power. --Kvng (talk) 23:14, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm no expert (who is?) but Phantom power says in part "T-power, also known as A-B powering [5] or 12T, described in DIN 45595, is an alternative to phantom powering that is fading into obsolescence. In this scheme, 12 volts is applied through 180 Ohm resistors between the microphone's 'hot' terminal (XLR pin 2) and the microphone's 'cold' terminal (XLR pin 3). This results in a 12 volt potential difference with significant current capability across pins 2 and 3, which would likely cause permanent damage if applied to a dynamic or ribbon microphone." Parallel power ignores the shield. Phantom power the cable shield as the return. --Wtshymanski (talk) 00:03, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

XLR 6 Differences
We can see difference between two models of XLR6.Of course you can't replace one by the other. For instance,the model for loudspeaker on Turntable EMT 948(pins location is symetric) and the other more recent model with asymetric location of pins. I have picture but too difficult to insert. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.221.139.123 (talk) 08:24, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Robustness
There is no mention in the whole article about one of XLR's most important and distinguishing (say, from USB, heh) properties: its extreme robustness, reliability and quality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.139.196.68 (talk) 23:19, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Pin out incorrect?
As far as I can tell, the pin out diagram is incorrect. The numbering for male and female are reversed. Female XLR plugs are 1-2-3, left-right-bottom and male XLR are 2-1-3. 1 being ground, 2 being hot and 3 cold. This is according to RaneNote 110 (pretty well known sound reinforcement wiring technical document) as well as the diagram on Clark Wire & Cable's website. --CableModem^^ (talk) 12:46, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

 * The difference is that Rane shows the back side of the connector, where the wires are connected (usually by solder). The diagram in the Wikipedia article shows the front side, the mating side. Both are correct. Binksternet (talk) 14:12, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

 * Just confirming that Binksternet is correct--both diagrams reflect what any user would see when observing them from the outside, and for both the cable-end-mounted and the panel-mounted variety. Of course, from the perspective of a repair tech (observing from the inside, where the wires are soldered to the connector) it's exactly what one would--or should--expect to see.  This would be a potentially confusing and totally unneccessary bit of trivia, and shouldn't even be included here, if we humans didn't occasionally forget the obvious, or if users never attempted repairing their own gear, but I've done both (long, long ago, of course)...Ob1-kenogle (talk) 05:46, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Application: Balanced Headphones
High-end balanced headphone cables use a 4-pin XLR connection to the headphone amplifier. Example: Oppo HA1 http://www.oppodigital.co.uk/eCommerce/ProductImages/ExtraLarge/HA-1%20Headphone%20Amplifier%5E1%5E635322238158220765.Png — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.2.180 (talk) 17:27, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Pin usage on Balanced headphones?
I came here to find what are the pin usage on balanced headphones, stereo, no microphone. I see 4 pins on products, where 5 would make more sense, unless they forgo the ground? Is that OK? I think the article would gain with mention(s) of balanced headphones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.157.227.130 (talk) 12:41, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

A lot of "Neutrik" promotional stuff in here
There's a lot of company promotion going on in this article. Is "Neutrik" really the "most popular brand of XLR connector"? And is that relevant to the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by James M Barlow (talk • contribs) 23:39, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

 * The claim of "most popular" certainly needs a reference, so I added a CN tag. However, complaining that Neutrik is receiving "promotion" here is a little like complaining about "promotion" of the Ford Motor Company in an article on the history of U.S. car manufacturers. Neutrik took a design that had been basically unchanged for decades and fixed several of its problems (not just the little screws). As a result they got a lot of attention, and everyone I know in pro audio prefers their products. Facts that appear to be biased sometimes are just facts. Jeh (talk) 08:35, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 one external links on XLR connector. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20111221152445/http://www.etcconnect.com:80/Community/wikis/products/etclink.aspx to http://www.etcconnect.com/Community/wikis/products/etclink.aspx
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20111221152501/http://www.etcconnect.com:80/Community/wikis/products/rfu.aspx to http://www.etcconnect.com/Community/wikis/products/rfu.aspx
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130511023107/http://www.etcconnect.com/Community/wikis/products/knowledgebase-xlr-pinout-for-etclink-and-rfu.aspx to http://www.etcconnect.com/Community/wikis/products/knowledgebase-xlr-pinout-for-etclink-and-rfu.aspx
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20160206103225/http://www.shure.com/americas/products/accessories/wireless-systems/wireless-systems-cables-connectors to http://www.shure.com/americas/products/accessories/wireless-systems/wireless-systems-cables-connectors

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at Sourcecheck).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 06:30, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

What does XLR stand for?
Could someone please add some info on what exactly the acronym XLR stands for?

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.131.139.203 (talk) 11:51, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on XLR connector. 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 tag to http://www.sterlingaudio.net/products/index.cfm?product=STEC7&modId=0
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20160206083827/http://www.switchcraft.com/Category.aspx?Parent=806 to http://www.switchcraft.com/Category.aspx?Parent=806
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20141027150424/http://www.switchcraft.com/Specification.aspx to http://www.switchcraft.com/Specification.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:41, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Should mention the EIA RS-297 polarity standard
The section on Three-pin in audio use should mention that the ubiquitous EIA RS-297 standard states that a positive pressure on the microphone should produce a positive voltage on pin 2.

References:

Dave Yost (talk) 21:30, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on XLR connector. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.soundfirst.com/xlr.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100302151718/http://www.rane.com/par-c.html to http://www.rane.com/par-c.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120910000551/http://sterlingaudio.net/products/index.cfm?product=STEC7&modId=0 to http://www.sterlingaudio.net/products/index.cfm?product=STEC7&modId=0

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:01, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

XLR means...
I found this, but I don't know if it is a good reference. (probably not) Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 22:20, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

 * Well, with three-pin mike connectors, extra line return makes more sense than external. But I don't know what is correct.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 23:32, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

no, it's nonsense. a helpful aide-memoire at best, & then only in a strict context of the three-pole versions of the connectors.

mr cannon christened his range of connectors "x" back in 1915, only he knows why, but this was way ahead of the curve if he just thought it sounded cool (like bell & their x-type jet planes). the 'L' was added along with the latching, see? & the 'R'.... might refer to the rubber, might mean 'resilient' or 'robust'.... either way, a quick skim of the article itself & of the thousands of internet references to these things will show that XLRs exist in many forms, with different numbers of contacts.

duncanrmi (talk) 20:57, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

XLR as mechanical connector
XLR connectors seem to have become a common standard for mechanically connecting "attachments" to "reciprocating machines", if you catch my drift. This seems to be a notable non-electrical use of the connector.

Unfortunately, citing this might be difficult due to the nature of the usage. While there's plenty of product pages to be found – even including an adapter from XLR to pressurised-air quick release (leave one of those in your machine shop to confuse the newbies!) – there's really no articles that discuss this connector usage in a more academic way, besides a Twitter thread or two.

Would this be appropriate to include in the article? TerrorBite (talk) 02:36, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:XLR connector


text:
British Columbia Highway 1

Highway 1 is a provincial highway in British Columbia, Canada, that carries the main route of the Trans-Canada Highway (TCH). The highway is 1,047 km long and connects Vancouver Island, the Greater Vancouver region in the Lower Mainland, and the Interior. It is the westernmost portion of the main TCH to be numbered "Highway 1", which continues through Western Canada and extends to the Manitoba–Ontario boundary. The section of Highway 1 in the Lower Mainland is the second-busiest freeway in Canada, after Ontario Highway 401 in Toronto.

The highway's western terminus is in the provincial capital of Victoria, where it serves as a city street and freeway in the suburbs. Highway 1 travels north to Nanaimo and reaches the Lower Mainland at Horseshoe Bay via a BC Ferries route across the Strait of Georgia. The highway bypasses Vancouver on a freeway that travels through Burnaby, northern Surrey, and Abbotsford while following the Fraser River inland. The freeway ends in Hope, where Highway 1 turns north and later east to follow the Fraser and Thompson rivers into the Interior and through Kamloops. The highway continues east across the Columbia Mountains, serving three national parks: Mount Revelstoke, Glacier, and Yoho. Highway 1 enters Alberta at Kicking Horse Pass near Banff National Park.

Highway 1 was preceded by several overland trails and wagon roads established in the mid-to-late 19th century, including the Old Yale Road in the Fraser Valley, the Cariboo Road, and the Big Bend Highway. The provincial government designated Highway 1 in 1941 on a portion of the Island Highway between Victoria and Kelsey Bay as well as the Vancouver–Banff highway. It was incorporated into the national Trans-Canada Highway program, which was established in 1949 and completed in 1962. Other sections of the highway were realigned in later years, including a new freeway in the Lower Mainland that opened in the 1960s and 1970s and was numbered Highway 401.

Vancouver Island section

The western terminus of Highway 1 and the 7,821 km main route of the Trans-Canada Highway is at Dallas Road on the southern coast of Victoria, which faces the Strait of Juan de Fuca. The terminus is marked by the Mile Zero Monument, a wooden sign at the foot of Beacon Hill Park, with a nearby statue of runner Terry Fox to commemorate his cross-country marathon that was planned to end at the monument. The highway travels north on Douglas Street and forms the boundary between the residential James Bay neighbourhood to the west and Beacon Hill Park to the east. At the northwest edge of the park, Blanshard Street, which later carries Highway 17, splits off from the highway to run a block east, staying parallel to Douglas Street. Highway 1 passes the Royal BC Museum and intersects Belleville Street, a short connector that carries a section of Highway 17 from the Black Ball Ferries terminal (which is used by the MV Coho to Port Angeles, Washington) and passes the British Columbia Parliament Buildings.

The highway travels through Downtown Victoria and passes several city landmarks, including the Fairmont Empress Hotel, the Bay Centre, Chinatown, and Save-On-Foods Memorial Centre. It follows Douglas Street, a six-lane urban thoroughfare with bus lanes during peak periods, and continues north into the suburban municipality of Saanich. Near the Uptown shopping centre, Highway 1 turns west and becomes a limited-access road that travels alongside the Galloping Goose Regional Trail through residential areas and along the north side of Portage Inlet. The highway becomes a full freeway with four-to-six lanes as it enters the town of View Royal and travels around the north side of Mill Hill Regional Park. It then intersects Highway 14 in Langford and reverts to a limited-access road with a median divider. Highway 1 (part of the Island Highway) then travels around Bear Mountain and turns north to follow the Goldstream River into Goldstream Provincial Park, where it meets several trailheads.

The Island Highway continues along the west side of the Saanich Inlet and enters the Cowichan Valley Regional District near Malahat. It descends from Malahat Summit, located at 352 m above sea level, on a highway with passing lanes and a median barrier added in the late 2010s in response to a high rate of collisions. The section also has occasional closures, relying on the limited-capacity Mill Bay Ferry or the longer Pacific Marine Circle Route as alternate connections between Greater Victoria and other Vancouver Island communities. Highway 1 passes the Malahat SkyWalk, an observation built by the Malahat First Nation, and through farmland surrounding Mill Bay. The highway travels around central Duncan and through North Cowichan and Ladysmith as it continues north as a divided highway with limited access at signalized intersections. In southern Nanaimo, it has a short concurrency with Highway 19, which continues east to the Duke Point ferry terminal and northwest along the Strait of Georgia. Highway 1 travels through central Nanaimo on Nicol Street and Stewart Avenue to the Departure Bay ferry terminal, where the Vancouver Island section ends. BC Ferries operates an automobile ferry service from Departure Bay to Horseshoe Bay that carries Highway 1 to the Lower Mainland region of British Columbia. A typical vessel assigned to the route can carry 1,460 to 1,571 passengers and 310 to 322 vehicles.

History
The Vancouver Island section of Highway 1 was designated in the initial numbering scheme announced by the provincial government in March 1940, along with Highway 1A. It originally connected Victoria to Kelsey Bay, a small coastal community north of Campbell River. The Vancouver Island section was truncated to downtown Nanaimo in 1953, with the section north of Nanaimo being re-numbered to Highway 19. When BC Ferries took over the ferry route between Departure Bay in Nanaimo and Horseshoe Bay in West Vancouver in 1961, Highway 1 was extended to the Departure Bay ferry dock.

The Malahat Highway was completed in 1911 as a gravel road with a single lane and was later upgraded to two paved lanes. A bridge across the Finlayson Arm to bypass the section was among 19 options studied in 2007, but were discarded in favor of other solutions that would cost less. In 2019, the provincial government studied the construction of a permanent detour for the Goldstream–Malahat section of Highway 1 and identified several potential routes, but instead decided to move forward with safety improvements to the existing highway. The section was severely damaged by several floods in November 2021, which closed the road for several days and required $15 million in repairs the following year.

Route details
Sections of Highway 1 from Grandview Highway in Vancouver to 216 Street in Langley vary from being 3 to 4 lanes in each direction, with one of these lanes being a high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane. These HOV lanes were constructed in 1998 as part of the BC MOT's "Go Green" project to promote the use of HOV vehicles, and cost $62 million. The highway shortens to two lanes per direction after leaving Langley (Metro Vancouver), and enters Abbotsford (Fraser Valley).

North Shore
The Upper Levels Highway opened between Horseshoe Bay and Taylor Way in West Vancouver on September 14, 1957, replacing a section of Marine Drive that had carried Highway 1. Construction on a new, high-level Second Narrows Bridge began two months later and was planned to be incorporated into the Trans-Canada Highway upon completion. On June 17, 1958, several spans of the unfinished bridge collapsed during work on the main arch; 18 workers died and one diver also died during a later search at the site. The Second Narrows Bridge was dedicated to the accident's victims and opened to traffic on August 25, 1960; it cost $23 million to construct and was the second-longest bridge in Canada at the time of its completion. The Upper Levels Highway was extended 5.76 mi east to the Second Narrows Bridge on March 4, 1961; the limited-access highway across North Vancouver cost $50 million to construct.

Vancouver to Chilliwack
Prior to the opening of the freeway (and prior to the 1980s and 1990s, expressway) segments of the present Trans-Canada, traffic used the Pattullo Bridge, Kingsway, and Fraser Highway as the Trans-Canada Highway. These roads were a part of the Highway 1 from its designation in 1940  until the redesignation of the B.C.'s 400 series highways in 1972/73.

By 1932 a new cutoff across northern parts of the drained Sumas Lake was mostly built. The cutoff bypassed the Yale Road which avoided the historical lake by running on its southern flank and along the base of Vedder Mountain. The highway was initially partly gravel, but it was fully paved within a few years of its opening.

From 1960 to 1964, the province opened several expressway and freeway segments as a part of a continuous express route between Bridal Falls and Taylor Way in West Vancouver.

On August 1, 1960, the Chilliwack Bypass was officially opened by Highways Minister Phil Gaglardi, MLA for Chillwack William Kenneth Kiernan and a six-year-old girl who cut the blue ribbon. About 4 mi of the road had been opened before Gaglardi officially opened the bypass. Work on the bypass started on December 12, 1956, with two men clearing bushes.

Around the time of opening of the Chilliwack Bypass, a bypass of Abbotsford was also being constructed. That section of freeway was officially opened by Phil Gaglardi on April 19, 1962.

On May 1, 1964, the section of Freeway between what is now north of the 1st Avenue interchange to the Cape Horn Interchange opened. This was followed on June 12 by the opening of the Port Mann bridge, and the official opening of the freeway-expressway system from Bridal Falls to Taylor Way. A 90-year-old man and 11-year-old girl assisted Premier W.A.C. Bennett and Phil Gaglardi in opening the bridge. At the time of the bridge's opening, various speed limits were in effect. The section from Bridal Falls to the Port Mann Bridge had a 70 mph limit. Through Burnaby 65 mph was the limit. Speeds dropped on approach to Cassiar Street with a 50 mph limit west of Boundary Road, with a drop to 30 mph for Cassiar Street.

New interchanges and upgrades
Over the years, various interchanges have been built and rebuilt.

On July 31, 1969, the interchange with Lickman Road in Chilliwack opened. The Prest Road overpass followed in the early 1970s.

In January 1992 the Cassiar Tunnel opened. The project replaced a surface street section of Cassiar Street which was used by traffic to get from the Burnaby Freeway to the Ironworkers Memorial Bridge.

Through the 2000s and 2010s multiple interchanges were upgraded and rebuilt along the highway. The Gateway program saw the rebuilding of several interchanges from Willingdon Avenue to 176 Street. Through Abbotsford the Mount Lehman/Fraser Highway, Clearbrook Road, and McCallum Road interchanges were rebuilt.

On June 9, 2011, Highway 1 between 152 Street in Surrey and Highway 11 in Abbotsford was designated as the Highway of Heroes.

On September 4, 2020, a new interchange with 216 Street was opened.

On November 10, 2022, it was announced that major construction of a new overpass at Glover Road (which will be built first), a revised interchange with Highway 10/232 St. and widening to three lanes between 216 Street and Highway 13/264 St. had started. This work is part of a plan to eventually widen the highway to Whatcom Road in Abbotsford.

Interior section

Several sections of Highway 1 between Revelstoke and the Alberta border are under the jurisdiction of Parks Canada.

History
The first section of the highway to be twinned was the 12 kilometre stretch in 1984/85 through Malakwa starting 8 kilometres east of Sicamous until Oxbow Road. This remained the only 4 lane stretch east of Kamloops until the 2000s

Since the 2000s, 25 kilometres of road in the Kicking Horse Pass near Golden have been rebuilt in phases to modern standards, with 4 lanes and the removal of sharp corners. The final phase is due for completion in 2024.

During major floods in November 2021, sections of Highway 1 between Hope and Spences Bridge were washed away into the Thompson River. Other sections of the highway on Vancouver Island and a railroad underpass near Lytton were also damaged in the same event. As a result of the floods, which also damaged other highways in the Fraser Valley, road connections from Metro Vancouver to the rest of Canada were cut off.

Future
The Interior section of Highway 1 is considered sub-standard when compared to other highways with similar traffic volume in the U.S. or other parts of Canada. The majority of the route is a dangerous, undivided two-lane highway with sharp corners, prone to frequent closures and accidents. To address this, the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure has undertaken an effort to twin the highway to four-lane 100 km/h standards between Kamloops and Alberta, with a targeted completion date of 2050. Several stretches of four-lane divided highway, including the Monte Creek to Pritchard section; the four-lane portions of the Kicking Horse Canyon, the 13 km-long passing lanes near Blind Bay, and many smaller four-lane divided fragments typically 2–4 km in length, are the results of this effort. As of 2020, about 25 percent of the highway between Alberta and Kamloops has been upgraded to a divided four-lane cross-section. Several new projects have been funded and are expected to the constructed by 2023, including:

 * A new 4.9 km-long four-lane divided section around Chase, involving the construction of an interchange at the town;
 * A new interchange and twinned highway at the West entrance of Salmon Arm;
 * A new four-lane bridge across the Shuswap River in Sicamous;
 * A new rest area and a 2 km-long four-lane section in the Illecillewaet Valley;
 * A 4.4 km-long twinning near Quartz Creek east of Golden;
 * And upgrading the remaining 4 km-long stretch of two-lane highway in the Kicking Horse Canyon.

Major intersections

 * Notes

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: British Columbia Highway 1


text:
Frederick VI

Frederick VI or Friedrich VI may refer to:

 * Frederick VI, Duke of Swabia (1167–1191)
 * Frederick VI, Count of Zollern (died 1298)
 * Frederick VI, Margrave of Baden-Durlach (1617–1677)
 * Frederick VI, Landgrave of Hesse-Homburg (1769–1829)
 * Frederick VI of Denmark (1768–1839), King of Denmark and Norway

title: Frederick VI


text:
Frederick VII

Frederick VII or Friedrich VII may refer to:

 * Frederick VII, Count of Zollern (d. after 6 October 1309)
 * Frederick VII, Count of Toggenburg (ca. 1370 – 1436)
 * Frederick VII, Margrave of Baden-Durlach (1647–1709)
 * Frederick VII of Denmark (1808–1863)

title: Frederick VII


text:
Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn

Erik Maria Ritter von Kuehnelt-Leddihn (31 July 1909 – 26 May 1999) was an Austrian-American nobleman and polymath, whose areas of interest included philosophy, history, political science, economics, linguistics, art and theology. He opposed the ideas of the French Revolution, as well as those of communism and Nazism. Describing himself as a "conservative arch-liberal" or "extreme liberal", Kuehnelt-Leddihn often argued that majority rule in democracies is a threat to individual liberties. He declared himself a monarchist and an enemy of all forms of totalitarianism, although he also supported what he defined as "non-democratic republics", such as Switzerland and the early United States. Kuehnelt-Leddihn cited the U.S. Founding Fathers, Tocqueville, Burckhardt, and Montalembert as the primary influences for his skepticism towards democracy.

Described as a "Walking Book of Knowledge" by William F. Buckley Jr., Kuehnelt-Leddihn had an encyclopedic knowledge of humanities and was a polyglot, able to speak eight languages and read seventeen others. His early books The Menace of the Herd (1943) and Liberty or Equality (1952) were influential within the American conservative movement. An associate of Buckley Jr., his best-known writings appeared in National Review, where he was a columnist for 35 years.

Early life and career
Von Kuehnelt-Leddihn was born in Tobelbad, Styria, Austria-Hungary. At 16, he became the Vienna correspondent of The Spectator. From then on, he wrote for the rest of his life. He studied civil and canon law at the University of Vienna at 18. Then he went to the University of Budapest, from which he received an M.A. in economics, studying under Pál Teleki, and later his doctorate in political science. Moving back to Vienna, he took up studies in theology. In 1935, Kuehnelt-Leddihn traveled to England to become a schoolmaster at Beaumont College, a Jesuit public school. Subsequently, he moved to the United States, where he taught at Georgetown University (1937–1938), Saint Peter's College, New Jersey (head of the History and Sociology Department, 1938–1943), Fordham University (Japanese, 1942–1943), and Chestnut Hill College, Philadelphia (1943–1947).

In a 1939 letter to the editor of The New York Times, Kuehnelt-Leddihn critiqued the design of every American coin then in circulation except for the Washington quarter, which he allowed was "so far the most satisfactory coin" and judged the Mercury dime to be "the most deplorable."

After publishing books like Jesuiten, Spießer und Bolschewiken in 1933 (published in German by Pustet, Salzburg) and The Menace of the Herd in 1943, in which he criticized the National Socialists as well as the Socialists, he remained in the United States, as he could not return to the Austria that had been incorporated into the Third Reich. Kuehnelt-Leddihn moved to Washington, D.C. in 1937, where he taught at Georgetown University. He also lectured at Fordham University, teaching a course in Japanese.

Following the Second World War, he resettled in Lans, where he lived until his death. He was an avid traveler: he had visited over seventy-five countries (including the Soviet Union in 1930–1931), as well as all fifty states in the United States and Puerto Rico. In October 1991, he appeared on an episode of Firing Line, where he debated monarchy with Michael Kinsley and William F. Buckley Jr.

Kuehnelt-Leddihn wrote for a variety of publications, including Chronicles, Thought, the Rothbard-Rockwell Report, Catholic World, and the Norwegian business magazine Farmand. He also worked with the Acton Institute, which declared him after his death "a great friend and supporter." He was an adjunct scholar of the Ludwig von Mises Institute. For much of his life, Kuehnelt was also a painter; he illustrated some of his own books.

Work
His socio-political writings dealt with the origins and the philosophical and cultural currents that formed Nazism. He endeavored to explain the intricacies of monarchist concepts and the systems of Europe, cultural movements such as Hussitism and Protestantism, and the disastrous effects of an American policy derived from antimonarchical feelings and ignorance of European culture and history.

Kuehnelt-Leddihn directed some of his most significant critiques towards Wilsonian foreign policy activism. Traces of Wilsonianism could be detected in the foreign policies of Franklin Roosevelt; specifically, the assumption that democracy is the ideal political system in any context. Kuehnelt-Leddihn believed that Americans misunderstood much of Central European culture such as the Austro-Hungarian Empire, which Kuehnelt-Leddihn claimed as one of the contributing factors to the rise of Nazism. He also highlighted characteristics of the German society and culture (especially the influences of both Protestant and Catholic mentalities) and attempted to explain the sociological undercurrents of Nazism. Thus, he concludes that sound Catholicism, sound Protestantism, or even, probably, sound popular sovereignty (German-Austrian unification in 1919) would have prevented National Socialism although Kuehnelt-Leddihn rather dislikes the latter two.

Contrary to the prevailing view that the Nazi Party was a radical right-wing movement with only superficial and minimal leftist elements, Kuehnelt-Leddihn asserted that Nazism (National Socialism) was a strongly leftist, democratic movement ultimately rooted in the French Revolution that unleashed forces of egalitarianism, conformity, materialism and centralization. He argued that Nazism, fascism, radical-liberalism, anarchism, communism and socialism were essentially democratic movements, based upon inciting the masses to revolution and intent upon destroying the old forms of society. Furthermore, Kuehnelt-Leddihn claimed that all democracy is basically totalitarian and that all democracies eventually degenerate into dictatorships. He said that it was not the case for "republics" (the word, for Kuehnelt-Leddihn, has the meaning of what Aristotle calls πολιτεία), such as Switzerland, or the United States, as it was originally intended in its constitution. However, he considered the United States to have been to a certain extent subject to a silent democratic revolution in the late 1820s.

In Liberty or Equality, his masterpiece, Kuehnelt-Leddihn contrasted monarchy with democracy and presented his arguments for the superiority of monarchy: diversity is upheld better in monarchical countries than in democracies. Monarchism is not based on party rule and "fits organically into the ecclesiastic and familistic pattern of Christian society." After insisting that the demand for liberty is about how to govern and by no means by whom to govern a given country, he draws arguments for his view that monarchical government is genuinely more liberal in this sense, but democracy naturally advocates for equality, even by enforcement, and thus becomes anti-liberal. As modern life becomes increasingly complicated across many different sociopolitical levels, Kuehnelt-Leddihn submits that the Scita (the political, economic, technological, scientific, military, geographical, psychological knowledge of the masses and of their representatives) and the Scienda (the knowledge in these matters that is necessary to reach logical-rational-moral conclusions) are separated by an incessantly and cruelly widening gap and that democratic governments are totally inadequate for such undertakings.

In February 1969, Kuehnelt-Leddihn wrote an article arguing against seeking a peace deal to end the Vietnam War. Instead, he argued that the two options proposed, a reunification scheme and the creation of a coalition Vietnamese government, were unacceptable concessions to the Marxist North Vietnam. Kuehnelt-Leddihn urged the US to continue the war until the Marxists were defeated.

Kuehnelt-Leddihn also denounced the US Bishops' 1983 pastoral The Challenge of Peace. He wrote that "The Bishops' letter breathes idealism... moral imperialism, the attempt to inject theology into politics, ought to be avoided except in extreme cases, of which abolition and slavery are examples."

Personal life
Kuehnelt-Leddihn was married to Countess Christiane Gräfin von Goess, with whom he had three children. At the time of his death in 1999, he was survived by all four of them, as well as seven grandchildren. He and his wife were buried at their village church in Lans.

Kuehnelt held friendships with many of the major conservative intellectuals and figures of the 20th century, including William F. Buckley Jr., Russell Kirk, Crown Prince Otto von Habsburg, Friedrich A. Hayek, Mel Bradford, Ludwig von Mises, Wilhelm Röpke, Ernst Jünger, and Joseph Ratzinger (later Pope Benedict XVI). According to Buckley, Kuehnelt-Leddihn was "the world's most fascinating man." Catholic apologist Karl Keating stated that Kuehnelt-Leddihn was the most intelligent man he ever met.

In 1931, while in Hungary, Kuehnelt-Leddihn stated that he had a supernatural experience. While conversing with a friend, the two men saw Satan appear before them. Kuehnelt-Leddihn recounts this experience as so:

"'Slowly, in that moment, to both of us, Satan appeared as Satan appears in primitive books. Naked, reddish, horns, long tongue, trident, and we both exploded laughing. In other words, laughing hysterically. As I later found out, in apparitions of the Devil, this is a natural reaction, that you laugh hysterically.'"

Novels

 * The Gates of Hell: An Historical Novel of the Present Day. London: Sheed & Ward, 1933.
 * Night Over the East. London: Sheed & Ward, 1936.
 * Moscow 1979. London: Sheed & Ward, 1940 (with Christiane von Kuehnelt-Leddihn).
 * Black Banners. Aldington, Kent: Forty-Five Press & Hand and Flower Press, 1952.

Socio-political works

 * The Menace of the Herd. Milwaukee: The Bruce Publishing Co., 1943 (under the pseudonym of "Francis S. Campell" to protect relatives in wartime Austria).
 * Liberty or Equality. Front Royal, Virginia: Christendom Press, 1952; 1993.
 * The Timeless Christian. Chicago: Franciscan Herald Press, 1969.
 * Leftism, From de Sade and Marx to Hitler and Marcuse. New Rochelle, New York: Arlington House Publishers, 1974.
 * The Intelligent American's Guide to Europe. New Rochelle, N.Y.: Arlington House Publishers, 1979.
 * Leftism Revisited, From de Sade and Marx to Hitler and Pol Pot. Washington, D.C.: Regnery Gateway, 1990.

Collaborations

 * "Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn." In: F.J. Sheed (Ed.), Born Catholics. New York: Sheed & Ward, 1954, pp. 220–238.
 * "Pollyanna Catholicism." In: Dan Herr & Clem Lane (Ed.), Realities. Milwaukee: The Bruce Publishing Company, 1958, pp. 1–12.
 * "The Age of the Guillotine." In: Stephen Tonsor (Ed.), Reflections on the French Revolution: A Hillsdale Symposium. Washington, D.C.: Regnery Gateway, 1990.

Selected articles

 * “Credo of a Reactionary”, The American Mercury 57, July 1943.
 * “An Anti-Nazi Allegory”, The American Mercury 59, July 1944.
 * “Recuperating Spain”, Modern Age 1 (1), March 1957.
 * “Revolution, Crime, and Sin in the Catholic World”, Modern Age 2 (2), June 1958.
 * “The Artist and the Intellectual in Anglo-Saxonry and on the Continent”, Modern Age 3 (4), December 1959.
 * "The Thorny Problem of the Vernacular" The Catholic World, December 1962.
 * "The Roots of Leftism in Christendom", The Freeman 18 (2), February 1968.
 * "Latin America in Perspective", The Freeman 18 (4), April 1968.
 * "The Woes of the Underdeveloped Nations", The Freeman 21 (1), January 1971.
 * "The Western Dilemma: Calvin or Rousseau?", Modern Age 15 (1), March 1971.
 * "We and the Third World", The Freeman 22 (2), February 1972.
 * "The Years of Godlessness", Modern Age 16 (1), March 1972.
 * "Free Enterprise and the Russians", The Freeman 22 (8), August 1972.
 * "The Roots of ‘Anticapitalism’", The Freeman 22 (11), November 1972.
 * "Portrait of an Evil Man", The Freeman 23 (9), September 1973.
 * "Scita Et Scienda: The Dwarfing of Modern Man", Imprimis, October 1974.
 * "The Unholy Ikons", Modern Age 20 (1), March 1976.
 * "Utopias and Ideologies: Another Chapter in the Conservative Demonology", Modern Age 21 (3), September 1977.
 * "Controversy", Policy Review 15, January 1981.
 * "The Problems of a Successful American Foreign Policy", Imprimis 14 (11), November 1985.
 * "Democracy’s Road to Tyranny", The Freeman 38 (5), May 1988.
 * "Operation Parricide: Sade, Robespierre, and the French Revolution", Fidelity Magazine, October 1989.
 * “The Four Liberalisms”, Religion & Liberty 2 (4), July/August 1992.
 * “Economics in the Catholic World”, Religion & Liberty 4 (4), July/August 1994.
 * “Christianity, the Foundation and Conservator of Freedom”, Religion & Liberty 7 (6), November – December 1997.
 * “Liberalism in America”, The Intercollegiate Review 33 (1), Fall 1997.
 * "Hebrews and Christians", The Rothbard-Rockwell Report 9 (4), April 1998.
 * "Monarchy and War", The Journal of Libertarian Studies 15 (1), December 2000.
 * “The Cultural Background of Ludwig von Mises”, Studies in Classical Liberalism, n.d.

Sayings

 * "'Welfare State' is a misnomer, for every state must care for the common good."
 * "For the average person, all problems date to World War II; for the more informed, to World War I; for the genuine historian, to the French Revolution."
 * "Liberty and equality are in essence contradictory."
 * "There is little doubt that the American Congress or the French Chambers have a power over their nations which would rouse the envy of a Louis XIV or a George III, were they alive today. Not only prohibition, but also the income tax declaration, selective service, obligatory schooling, the fingerprinting of blameless citizens, premarital blood tests—none of these totalitarian measures would even the royal absolutism of the seventeenth century have dared to introduce."
 * "I am for the word Rightist. Right is right and left is wrong, you see, and in all languages 'right' has a positive meaning and 'left' a negative one. In Italian, typically, la sinistra is 'the left' and il sinistro is 'the mishap' or 'the calamity.' Japanese describes evil as hidar-imae, 'the thing in front of the left.' And in the Bible, it says in Ecclesiastes, which the Hebrews call Koheleth, that “the heart of the wise man beats on his right side and the heart of the fool on his left.'

title: Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn


text:
Frederick VIII

Frederick VIII or Friedrich VIII may refer to:

Rulers

 * Frederick VIII, Count of Zollern (d. 1333)
 * Frederick VIII, Duke of Schleswig-Holstein (1829–1880)
 * Frederick VIII of Denmark (1843–1912)

Ships

 * SS Frederik VIII, DFDS ocean liner launched 1913, retired 1936

title: Frederick VIII


text:
Talk:Mary Ann Day Brown

Thirteen children and importance
There are only 12 children listed, but the article says 13. Can anyone find a more complete list? - (unsigned)

An unnamed child died in infancy. - Nunh-huh 00:48, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

Second question, is she famous in her own right? -- Graham :) | Talk 00:52, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

 * As far as I can tell, she did what women of her time did: kept house, made it possible for her husband to accomplish what he could, and raised children - some of whom accompanied their father on raids that helped start the Civil War. Some will, perhaps because of their cultural biases, find this less significant than the latest Pokémon character. Some won't. - Nunh-huh 01:16, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Well the fact of the matter is that as a family historian I can provide examples of quite a lot of my ancestors who did exactly that and in the same time period, but if I wrote articles about them they'd be on votes for deletion quicker than a gnat's breath. My question is, what makes this woman different? -- Graham  :) | Talk 13:20, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
 * According to this website, she was an active abolitionist, and provided a "cover" for John and sons. It also says that, with the exception of two sons, the entire family took part in the Harper's Ferry raid, but I suspect this dosn't include the women. Scott Burley 05:47, May 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * Then perhaps the article needs to say that, because as it stands at the moment it's just genealogical information and nothing else: certainly not encyclopedia material. -- Graham :) | Talk 09:45, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

See the artile, which now identifies 13 children, including the unnamed child who died very young.

See the legacy section about her importance.–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:30, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Abolitionist
, I am a little confused by this edit, with the edit summary stating that Mary Brown was not an abolitionist. Please read the second paragraph of the Ohio section, the North Elba section, and the Legacy section.

Please also read the abstract here for The Tie That Bound Us: The Women of John Brown's Family and the Legacy of Radical Abolitionism by Bonnie Laughlin-Schultz.

Why do you wish to make a point that she was not an abolitionist?–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:09, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

 * Because I have yet to read documentary evidence or letters that support it.

 * I'd been reading a bunch of stuff on her. I looked at the abstract you cited above and it says nothing about Mary's supposed commitment to abolitionist principlrs. I own and have reas that book. But I'll look at it again.

 * Mary refused to go to the Kennedy Fsrm (or to Kansas). That's why the two girls went. Someone was just talking about it. When I find it agsin I'll put it in here. If you want to take it out til I cite a source OK, but there are sources.

 * Mary didn't give interviews or anti-slavery talks. She didn't stay in North Elba as John expected. deisenbe (talk) 21:29, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

 * I am a little confused by the disconnect. Here is specific content that I was referring to...

 * From the article:
 * Mary believed it important to bring an end to slavery. She saw African Americans as her equals.[11]
 * John considered his wife a partner and a "fast and faithful affectionate friend" who made it possible for him to focus on his fight against slavery. He recognized that she took on a life of "poverty, trials, discredit, and sore afflictions" due to his commitments, which resulted in periods of illness and loss.[13]
 * related to the second bullet Gerrit Smith established a land-grant colony for African Americans at North Elba, New York, in the Adirondacks wilderness. John Brown moved to the area, with his family, to teach the men how to farm.[16]
 * The Browns assisted Blacks who were escaping slavery on the Underground Railroad, which became more dangerous with the passage of the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850.[19]
 * Brown's life was one of financial hardship,[22] and yet the family set aside money to aid African Americans in North Elba.[23]
 * Mary was described as an invalid by visitor Richard Henry Dana Jr. in 1849. and yet Mary was managing the family's "hardscrabble" existence in North Elba — as he traveled through Canada and the Northern states.[24]
 * Her correspondence shows that she was devoted to her husband and abolitionism. Author John Newton stated in Captain John Brown (1902) that she bore "hardship, poverty, prolonged separation from her husband, yea, even the loss of her noble sons to further the sacred cause of freedom."

 * The fact that Mary refused to come to the Kennedy Farm, as her husband requested. She did not answer his request at all, and did "everything in her power" to prevent her stepdaughter Annie and Oliver's wife Martha from going in her place.[25]: 1188 means to me that Mary was not a passive supporter of John's efforts. If she didn't believe in an approach - or wanted to keep her and her daughters safe from harm - she stood her ground.

 * From Laughlin-Schultz abstract
 * the commitment of his wife and daughters often goes unacknowledged. This book reveals for the first time the depth of the Brown women's involvement in his cause... followed by more supporting content.
 * Because of their longevity and their position as symbols of the most radical form of abolitionist agitation, the story of the Brown women illuminates the changing nature of how Americans remembered Brown's raid, radical antislavery, and the causes and consequences of the Civil War.

 * From page 4 of Laughlin-Schultz's book
 * In 1857 abolitionist and Brown backer Franklin Sanborn noted that Mary, Ruth, and Annie were “hardworking, self-denying, devoted women, fully sensible of the greatness of the struggle in which Capt. Brown is engaged, and willing to bear their part in it.”11 In the 1840s and 1850s, Mary and Ruth labored at home so that Brown and his sons could be away Fighting slavery, and daughter Annie worked alongside Brown’s raiders in 1859. But they experienced the decades in which the family was drawn into antislavery militancy from a perspective different from that of their men. While the Brown men were away, the Brown women toiled at home, their efforts al¬ lowing Brown’s commitment to antislavery endeavors near and far.–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:24, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Hudson, Ohio
,

I have made this edit one more time. It is not in the cited source.

On one hand, there is an issue with making edits based upon original research versus research from reliable sources. In addition, it is a slippery slope to make edits, even a relatively minor edit like this, without adding the source. Then the article loses its verifiability, credibility, and reliability.

If you'd really like to have this, as I believe you do, please add a source for the information that Hudson was John Brown's home town.

Thanks!–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:21, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

 * That is easily done. deisenbe (talk) 21:30, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

 * Great!–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:27, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Surname vs. given name
FYI: There have been some edits made back and forth between use of Mary's given name and her surname in the article. Generally, surname is used per MOS:SURNAME. But one editor seemed determined to use her given name. In this case, there's no use arguing about this. Because of all the Brown's mentioned in the article, it is clearer to reference the subject as Mary.–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:24, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

 * Struck out two sentences that are not needed and sound snarky upon reflection.–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:46, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Mary Ann Day Brown


text:
Talk:Atopic syndrome

Are dimples in the fingernails associated with this too? I understand that they are with eczema. --bodnotbod 00:46, May 4, 2004 (UTC)

A collection of short hairs under the fringe;

 * The fringe of what? 24.52.142.7 11:51, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Ditto.
 * MSTCrow 00:59, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:Atopic syndrome


text:
Washington State Route 522

State Route 522 (SR 522) is a state highway in the U.S. state of Washington that serves the Seattle metropolitan area. Approximately 25 mi long, it connects the city of Seattle to the northeastern suburbs of Kenmore, Bothell, Woodinville, and Monroe. Its western half is primarily an arterial street, named Lake City Way and Bothell Way, that follows the northern shore of Lake Washington; the eastern half is a grade-separated freeway that runs between Woodinville and Monroe. SR 522 connects several of the metropolitan area's major highways, including Interstate 5 (I-5), I-405, SR 9, and U.S. Route 2 (US 2).

The present-day route of SR 522 was built in stages between 1907 and 1965, beginning with the Red Brick Road from Seattle to Bothell, then part of the Pacific Highway and later US 99. The road later became a branch of Primary State Highway 2 (PSH 2) in 1937, and was extended east to Redmond and North Bend. A branch of the Stevens Pass Highway was built to connect PSH 2 in Bothell and Monroe in 1965, and was incorporated into SR 202 after it was designated in 1964. The Bothell–Monroe highway was re-designated as part of SR 522 in 1970, leaving SR 202 on the Bothell–North Bend highway.

Since the late 1990s, the SR 522 corridor between Woodinville and Monroe has been partially converted to a freeway to address safety concerns and a growing population. Portions of the highway near Woodinville and Monroe were widened between 2001 and 2014, while other sections near Maltby remain two lanes wide and undivided, with improvement projects left unfunded.

Route description

SR 522, named Lake City Way within Seattle city limits, begins at an interchange with I-5 in the Roosevelt neighborhood of northern Seattle, east of Green Lake. The interchange only allows movements south towards Downtown Seattle on I-5, and includes a connection to the freeway's reversible express lane system. The highway travels northeast from the interchange, tunneling under the intersection of Roosevelt Way NE and NE 75th Street; the intersection itself is connected to SR 522 by a series of ramps to collector streets. Lake City Way continues northeast through Maple Leaf as a four-lane arterial street before turning north on its approach to Thornton Creek. After crossing the creek, the highway enters the Lake City neighborhood, passing several car dealerships. Lake City itself is a designated urban village, with mixed-use development and apartment buildings that are centered around the intersection of Lake City Way between NE 125th Street and NE 145th Street. At NE 145th Street, SR 522 intersects SR 523 and crosses into Lake Forest Park.

Beyond Seattle, the highway is named Bothell Way and follows the northern shore of Lake Washington. SR 522 intersects Ballinger Way (SR 104) at the central shopping center in Lake Forest Park, and is joined by the Burke-Gilman Trail, a multi-use trail running along the lakefront on a former railroad grade. Bothell Way continues east along the northern shore of Lake Washington through the city of Kenmore, located on the mouth of the Sammamish River and home to the Kenmore Air Harbor seaplane base. SR 522 travels upriver through a narrow valley that makes a sharp turn north towards Bothell. The highway turns east and continues downhill of the city's downtown business district, staying near the Sammamish River (and the Sammamish River Trail) and intersecting Bothell Way (formerly SR 527). Leaving Bothell, SR 522 then travels around the southern edge of University of Washington Bothell and Cascadia College campus and intersects I-405, becoming a grade-separated freeway.

East of I-405, SR 522 enters Woodinville and follows Little Bear Creek as it turns north away from the city's downtown, intersecting SR 202. The freeway enters Snohomish County and intersects SR 9 south of the Brightwater sewage treatment plant. It continues through several sharp turns that follow the Eastside Rail Corridor, a former railroad grade that runs northeasterly through the predominantly rural area near Grace. In Maltby, the freeway reaches an at-grade intersection with Paradise Lake Road (SR 524) and becomes a two-lane undivided highway. SR 522 travels northeast from Maltby, intersecting Echo Lake Road in a single-point urban interchange, and crosses the Snohomish River into Monroe. Within Monroe, the highway widens to a four-lane freeway with median separation and intersects Main Street in a dogbone interchange near the Monroe Correctional Complex. SR 522 cuts across suburban housing areas in Monroe, and crosses over US 2 and the BNSF Railway near the Evergreen State Fairgrounds. The highway makes a 180-degree turn south to intersect with US 2, where it terminates; the intersection also has a direct offramp for eastbound traffic from SR 522 to eastbound US 2.

The entire route of SR 522 is designated as part of the National Highway System, classifying it as important to the national economy, defense, and mobility. The State of Washington also designates the SR 522 corridor as a Highway of Statewide Significance, which includes highways that connect major communities throughout the state. The highway is the primary route for Seattle-area residents to access Stevens Pass and other parts of the Cascade Mountains. SR 522 is maintained by the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT), which conducts an annual survey on the state's highways to measure traffic volume in terms of annual average daily traffic. In 2016, WSDOT calculated that 96,000 vehicles used SR 522 at its interchange with I-405 and 12,000 vehicles used it at its eastern terminus in Monroe, the highest and lowest counts along the highway, respectively.

Red Brick Road

Logging settlements were established on the northern shore of Lake Washington in the 1860s and 1870s, relying primarily on the water for intercity transportation. The Seattle, Lake Shore and Eastern Railway was built along the lakefront in 1888, connecting Seattle to the new towns of Bothell and Kenmore. By the 1890s, unpaved logging trails had been completed along Lake Washington and the railroad, reaching as far northeast as Maltby.

Bothell businessman and good roads advocate Gerhard Ericksen successfully lobbied the Washington State Legislature to fund the construction of a road from Seattle to Bothell as a State Aid Road and Permanent Highway in 1903. The first section of the highway, traveling 7 mi from Ravenna Park in Seattle to Lake Forest Park, was completed in 1907 and was pronounced by The Seattle Times as one of the "finest pieces of road to be found anywhere in the United States". From 1911 to 1913, the state and county government paved 4 mi of the highway between Lake Forest Park and Bothell with bricks. The highway, named the Ericksen Road after its promoter and Bothell Road after the city of Bothell, was opened on January 10, 1914, in an event named the "Boulevard Blowout" that featured 50 automobiles traversing the entire route between Seattle and Bothell. Most of the brick road was replaced in 1934, but a section south of downtown Bothell was preserved and remains known as Red Brick Road Park.

Federal and state highways

The Bothell Road became part of the Pacific Highway in 1915, forming part of the highway that would continue north from Bothell towards Everett. In 1922, the original road alignment through modern-day Lake City was bypassed by the new, concrete-paved Victory Way, dedicated in the memory of World War I veterans. The Pacific Highway was incorporated into a new national highway system that was approved by the American Association of State Highway Officials on November 11, 1926, and numbered as US 99. On October 15, 1927, the North Trunk Highway was opened between Seattle and Everett, providing a shorter and more direct route that would later be designated as US 99 and the Pacific Highway. The Bothell Highway was renovated from Seattle to Lake Forest Park in 1939, including a widening to four lanes and straightening of some segments. Part of the highway in Seattle city limits was renamed to Lake City Way in 1967, after lobbying from Lake City businessmen.

An unpaved extension of the Bothell Road, traveling along the Sammamish River to Woodinville, Redmond, and Fall City, was designated as a branch of the Sunset Highway (State Road 2) in 1925. The highway was later paved and incorporated into a longer branch of the Sunset Highway (re-designated as Primary State Highway 2) in 1937, running from Downtown Seattle to Fall City. The branch highway was extended to North Bend after the opening of a Sunset Highway bypass in 1941, using the former mainline road.

Another branch of the Bothell Road, from Bothell to the Stevens Pass Highway (Primary State Highway 15) in Monroe, was proposed by the state good roads association in the late 1930s. In 1941, funding for this segment was rejected by the state senate, in favor of completing the highway between Everett and Monroe first. The Bothell–Monroe Cutoff was designated as a branch of Primary State Highway 15 in 1943, with a provision that the highway would be constructed after the completion of the Everett–Monroe route. The King County government also unsuccessfully lobbied in the early 1950s for a 23 mi highway connecting Duvall to Skykomish along the Tolt River as an alternative to the Monroe cutoff. Construction of the highway was pushed back to 1961, and it was further delayed by rainy weather. The 8.2 mi Bothell–Monroe Cutoff opened on February 10, 1965, costing $5.3 million (equivalent to $ million in dollars) and cutting 20 minutes in travel time between Seattle and the Stevens Pass ski area.

In 1963, the state legislature commissioned a new state highway numbering system to ease confusion over similarly numbered routes. The new system debuted in 1964, initially with State Route 522 (SR 522) assigned to the branch of Primary State Highway 2 from Seattle to North Bend, and State Route 202 (SR 202) assigned to the branch of Primary State Highway 15 from Woodinville to Monroe. By 1970, SR 522 had been moved to the Bothell–Monroe Cutoff, while SR 202 was moved to the Woodinville–North Bend highway.

Freeway expansion and safety improvements

The North Seattle section of the Everett–Seattle Freeway (now I-5) opened on August 28, 1963, including access to Bothell Way in the Roosevelt neighborhood. SR 522 was truncated to I-5, removing Roosevelt Way and Eastlake Avenue from the state highway system. A four-level freeway interchange with I-405 east of Bothell was completed in 1969, creating a connection between SR 522 and SR 202.

In 1968, the state highway department proposed the conversion of SR 522 into a freeway bypassing Lake City Way and Bothell Way. The plan drew heavy opposition from local residents, who feared bottlenecks and a reduction in quality of life, and was abandoned by the Washington State Highway Commission in 1970 before being dropped from regional plans in 1973. Freeway plans in Monroe moved forward instead, with the completion of a 2 mi bypass to the west of downtown in 1972. SR 522 was moved from its routing on Main Street to the new freeway, which terminated at US 2 and removed a railroad grade crossing from the route.

Since the 1980s, population growth in Monroe and around the SR 522 has resulted in increased traffic congestion and safety issues, including a rise in accidents and crashes. The highway was originally designed for eventual conversion into a four-lane freeway, with leftover right-of-way and bridge approaches built in 1965. Between 1980 and 1995, the 10.5 mi stretch of SR 522 between Woodinville and Monroe was the site of over 1,100 accidents and 40 deaths. SR 522 has been named as one of the most dangerous highways in the United States by Reader's Digest in 1995 and Forbes in 2007, among other lists. The rock band "State Route 522" formed in 1995 by local indie rock musician Jake Snider was named for the highway.

In response to the crashes on SR 522, local residents organized a grassroots campaign (named "Citizens Rallying for a Safer Highway") to petition the state for safety improvements and a highway widening. In 1993, the state legislature allocated $180 million (equivalent to $ million in dollars) in funding towards a five-stage widening project, but the funds were transferred to the general fund at the behest of Governor Mike Lowry. The 1994 supplemental transportation budget included $2 million for engineering studies on SR 522, with construction of a four-lane freeway funded through other means. State lawmakers recommended tolling SR 522 to pay off construction bonds, but the plan was shelved after opposition from local residents.

Existing state funds were used for the first stages of the SR 522 corridor project, including the addition of median rumble strips and improved pavement markers in 1995, which helped reduce head-on collisions. The city of Monroe replaced the eastern half of SR 522's interchange with Main Street (164th Street Southeast) with a roundabout, the first to be built in Snohomish County, in 2001. The first stage of the corridor project, completed in 2001, widened a section between SR 9 and Paradise Lake Road (SR 524) in Maltby at a cost of $22 million. At the time, the state government estimated that it would cost $82 million (equivalent to $ million in dollars) to widen the remaining sections of SR 522; the projects had been prioritized under a 1998 ballot initiative, but funding was cut by Washington Initiative 695.

The second stage, a new single-point urban interchange at Echo Lake Road southwest of Monroe, was completed in 2006 at a cost of $37 million. The third stage of the SR 522 corridor project was completed in 2014, widening the highway to four lanes across the Snohomish River and through Monroe to US 2, where a new eastbound offramp was also constructed separately in 2012. A new roundabout at the 164th Street Southeast interchange was also opened as part of the project, completing the dogbone interchange. A separate project to build a new intersection with flyover ramps at the south end of the University of Washington Bothell campus was completed in 2009 at a cost of $52.3 million. A 3/4 mi section of SR 522 in Downtown Bothell was rebuilt in 2013 to improve safety and eliminate a hazardous intersection.

The remaining stages of the SR 522 corridor project between Maltby and the Snohomish River were planned to be funded by the Roads and Transit ballot measure in 2007, before it was rejected by local voters. The 2015 state transportation package included $10 million in design funding for an interchange at Paradise Lake Road in Maltby, to be made available in 2025, but construction of the interchange and widening of the remaining segment remains unfunded. The preliminary design options for the future diamond interchange would place the main ramps at either SR 524 or Paradise Lake Road. A coalition of politician and business leaders named "Finish522" was formed in 2018 to lobby the state government for barriers and complete grade separation in the wake of several fatal crashes in the mid-2010s. Long-term plans from WSDOT to address increasing traffic congestion in downtown Monroe include the construction of a highway bypass for US 2 to the north of the city. The project would include a northern extension of SR 522 to intersect the realigned US 2 near Kelsey Street and Chain Lake Road.

Mass transit

The western portion of SR 522, including Lake City Way and Bothell Way, is a major public transit corridor for the region and is served by Sound Transit Express and King County Metro bus routes. Bus lanes were added to sections of SR 522 in Seattle, Lake Forest Park, and Kenmore in the 1990s, and were expanded in the 2000s. In 2002, Sound Transit launched express Route 522, traveling between Downtown Seattle and Woodinville. The route was truncated to the Roosevelt light rail station when it opened in October 2021.

Sound Transit plans to run a Stride bus rapid transit line on SR 522 from NE 145th Street to the University of Washington Bothell campus as part of its Sound Transit 3 program, approved in 2016. The S3 Line is scheduled to begin service in 2028 and will terminate at the NE 148th Street light rail station in Shoreline. The corridor has also been proposed for forms of rail transit since the mid-20th century, including the failed Forward Thrust ballot measures of 1968 and 1970, the Seattle Monorail Project, and light rail in the Sound Transit long-range plan.

title: Washington State Route 522