Talk:Interstate 95 in Maryland

U.S. Roads: Interstates / Maryland Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of the U.S. Roads WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to state highways and other major roads in the United States. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.U.S. RoadsWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. RoadsTemplate:WikiProject U.S. RoadsU.S. road transport articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Topics

Interstate Highways

Locations

Maryland

This article has a map. If the file has an error, please work with the Maps department to correct it.

This article has a junction list compliant with the Manual of Style on road junction lists.

This article has a KML file. If the file has an error, please work with the Maps department to correct it.

Article recognition:

	A fact from this article was featured on the Did you know? section of the U.S. Roads Portal in March 2015.

It is requested that a photograph of Northbound I-95 Truck Weigh Station in Perryville be included in this article to improve its quality.

Wikipedians in Maryland may be able to help!

The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

Area between MD 32 and I-195

Does anyone have any information about why so many bad things happen on this stretch of 95? for example the truck rolled over, state trooper was shot, and other stuff. Hollowman512 00:30, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Resubmitting for evaluation

How do we resubmit this article for evaluation? The article is similar in length and content to Interstate 70 in Maryland, yet it only has a Start rating. I checked the assessment project page but couldn't find anything that explained how to resubmit an article. -TheOneKEA

If you think it's better, just change it. Unlike good or featured articles, there's no bureaucracy here. --NE2 13:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Route description

Why does this article lack a route description? -TheOneKEA

In short, because no one's written one yet.-Jeff ^(talk) 13:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay it has one now. -TheOneKEA

Shunpiking

Shunpiking the Susquehanna River Bridge

Northbound travelers wishing to avoid paying the toll for the Millard E. Tydings Memorial Bridge at the Perryville toll plaza should exit I-95 onto MD 155, follow MD 155 west through Webster as far as the southern terminus of MD 161, then turn onto MD 161 north and follow it to US 1, where northbound travelers can cross the Susquehanna River using the Conowingo Dam. To return to I-95, travelers can use either MD 222 or Truck MD 222.

Seeing as how shunpiking is viewed as 'original research', I have transferred the paragraph on it to here to confirm this evaluation. I personally feel that it is a useful addition to the article, given its prevalence among Maryland residents. However, if it is indeed 'original research', then it should be removed. -TheOneKEA

If you can find a reliable source such as a newspaper article stating that it is a popular toll-avoidance route, you can clean it up and add it back, citing the article. --NE2 15:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does this count? It doesn't cover the northbound Perryville toll route that I found but it does describe an alternate, as well as the Delaware toll avoidance route and the Pennsylvania Turnpike avoidance route. -TheOneKEA

The US 40 routing probably is, since it's written by a Baltimore Sun columnist on a newspaper-hosted blog. I'm not sure about the Delaware toll, since that's a letter from a reader; the I-70 route certainly isn't, since it's a comment added by a reader and not filtered through Mr, Rodricks at all. --NE2 16:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's only possible to do this southbound, and I found this out on a summer drive up and down the east coast. But I didn't do it to avoid paying the toll. I did it because driving on the Millard E. Tydings Memorial Bridge scares the living daylights out of me. Six lanes that high with no visible structural support over what looks like a nothing more than a measley highway overpass? Even the Long Island Expressway near the Queens-Midtown Tunnel isn't that scary, and that's 106 feet above ground. ---- DanTD 17:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Exit List

I feel that the overabundance of notes in the Exit list column is warping the table by making the Notes column too wide, with the other columns being squished as a result. I feel that a separate section on the three ghost interchanges should be created, to allow the matter to be addressed in a more suitable manner. -TheOneKEA

OK, I went and created the section - I believe that the new section is a far better way to present the history of these ghost interchanges. -TheOneKEA

That looks better. I also like what the contributor did with making the exits purple. I was wondering if the future ICC exit should be a different color too to show that it doesn't currently exist.-Jeff ^(talk) 01:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Size

I seriously feel that this article needs to be split - the addition of a proper section on the ghost interchanges brought the article size up to 35KB, which is rather big. There are already separate articles on the Capital Beltway, the Fort McHenry Tunnel, and the John F. Kennedy Memorial Highway; is there scope to create more articles? -TheOneKEA

Perhaps Canceled highways of Baltimore, Maryland could be created, there is certainly enough notable info on them to create an article.-Jeff ^(talk) 02:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. There is probably enough info to create Interstate 95 (Baltimore, Maryland)! -TheOneKEA

Before we go creating intracity articles from intrastate articles, I'd go take this up at WT:IH to get more opinions, and maybe more options. You're talking about creating a whole new set of articles and standards that could balloon out of control (I-70 in Frederick, I-76 in Philadelphia, I-95 in Miami, I-55 in Saint Louis, etc). I agree that something needs to be done, though. --MPD^{T / C} 18:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. An article explicitly on Interstate 95 in Baltimore would probably invoke the precedent set for D.C., as Baltimore is an independent city and thus similar (but not precisely so) to D.C. in terms of article scope IMHO. The same argument could be applied for other independent cities, like Richmond, Virginia or Carson City, Nevada - if sufficient information on routes through those cities existed, I don't doubt that fully fledged articles could be written. -User:TheOneKEA

OK, the article has been split. Comments welcome. -TheOneKEA

Infobox/Shield

I have refurbished the infobox and used the neutered shield. The shield is neutered since MD does not use it anywhere on any Interstate. V60 ^{VTalk · VDemolitions · VRoads} 23:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe not new shields, but there is at least one I-95 (MD) shield somewhere within the I-395 stack interchange in Baltimore. -TheOneKEA

If it's ~~only five~~ at least one but not not the majority of all the shields, the shield stays neutered. V60 ^{VTalk · VDemolitions · VRoads} 00:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree; we shouldn't be putting the state name in unless it's standard in the state. --NE2 00:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:WMATA Metro Logo.svg

Image:WMATA Metro Logo.svg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 01:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge discussion

See WT:USRD. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 11:31, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merging Chesapeake House and Maryland House

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

I'm going to call this one as no consensus. It seems that everyone has said what they wanted to say, and a few weeks have gone by with no action. Both sides had good points, but one would be hard-pressed to mine a consensus out of it. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:12, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The articles Chesapeake House and Maryland House should be merged into the Service areas section of this article as the individual service areas are not notable enough for their own individual articles and the information from them can be adequately covered in this article. Dough 48 72 01:43, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Chesapeake House recently underwent an AFD discussion, where we determined that it is indeed sufficiently notable as a standalone article. Additionally, both facilities are within the top five busiest rest areas in the country, which gives more than a little indication of standalone notability. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There are several other toll roads that have service areas, such as the Pennsylvania Turnpike, New Jersey Turnpike, and New York State Thruway, that are nearly as busy as the ones on I-95 in MD. Save for two service stops on the New Jersey Turnpike, none of them have individual articles. Just because these two rest areas are among the busiest in the country does not mean they are worthy of individual articles. The fact they are busy can easily be mentioned in the service section of the I-95 in MD article. For a good example of a service area section in a toll road article, see New York State Thruway. Dough 48 72 02:36, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - The only two service areas on the NJTP have been merged into the NJTP article. Imzadi 1979 → 04:25, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support merger – the AfD only said that the content should not be deleted. It didn't prohibit the merger of that content someplace else. The information about these two service areas can be adequately covered in the I-95 (MD) article, and would enrich that article's coverage of the MD section of the freeway. Redirects will still direct interested readers to the appropriate section of the appropriate article. As a side note, the related Delaware House was merged into the I-95 (DE) article already. If the service areas weren't notable, they wouldn't even rate a whole section. They may or may not even get mentioned in the exit list. Imzadi 1979 → 02:54, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please do not misrepresent the content of Delaware House. The history shows that I am the only editor on that title. The title never contained a standalone article, nor do any deleted revisions exist on the title. The Delaware House title was created as a redirect, and has pointed at two different articles over the course of its roughly nine month existence. No merge ever occurred on that title. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:11, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's still a service area along the JFK Memorial Highway. The three are related, and whether it was created as an article that was merged, or created as a redirect, the effect is the same: it's a service area merged into the appropriate article. Imzadi 1979 → 04:25, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. No organizational benefit from merging here.--Milowent (talk) 02:59, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support merger — These service areas are notable; that has been established by the AfD discussion. The question is whether they are notable enough to be stand-alone articles. I would say they are notable enough to be their own article, but I am not comfortable with the reason being their top five attendance status. I would be more convinced if the articles were more developed and contained more notable information that separates them from your ordinary rest/service area. Therefore, until the articles can be supplied with information that establishes their notability beyond a reasonable doubt, I lean toward merging them with the I-95 in Maryland article. The articles can be split out again later when the pertinent information is applied to it. Viridiscalculus (talk) 04:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose merge. Having stopped at them often, I consider Chesapeake House and Maryland House to be more than the average rest area, and merit their own articles. Given that WP has articles on every station for many train and subway lines, I don't think major rest area houses having their own articles is excessive. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:02, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So would you say it is right to create an article for every rest area on every toll road? Dough 48 72 15:30, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose along the same lines as Wasted Time R. The Maryland House is a well-known rest area sufficiently notable for its own article, although I can't necessarily speak as to the Chesapeake House. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:07, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Both rest stop articles are relatively short, with the Chesapeake House article tagged as a stub. The short information on the history and services can easily be mentioned in the I-95 in MD article. A directory of services at the rest area is not allowed per WP:NOTDIRECTORY, so the Maryland House article should not even include that section. Dough 48 72 15:30, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - USRD and Wikipedia as a whole have countless stubs, but that doesn't mean they should be merged. If an article is lacking information, that's a reason to expand and improve it rather than eliminate it. I'm of the opinion that the Maryland House – and now the Chesapeake House, after reading it is among the busiest stops in the country – is notable enough for its own article. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:51, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - In essence, you are saying these two rest areas are a special case in which they have enough notability for their own article? If that's the case, is there a decent way in order to write a well-written article on such a topic? In the UK, there is Strensham services, which is a GA on a motorway service station. Should that article serve as a model for how the Chesapeake House and Maryland House articles should look if they are kept on their own? Dough 48 72 16:05, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes, but they're not necessarily "special" cases; I simply think they meet standard notability guidelines. The articles are not currently in dire condition, so that shouldn't be an issue for now, but I don't see why we can't get GAs out of both of them. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:28, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question: First, let me state my background. I'm from the west, where almost all rest and view areas are parking lots with picnic tables, restrooms and a viewing platform, occasionally you might see vending machines. As such I could not imagine creating an article for a rest area for any of the areas I frequent. However, my question is: How unique are rest areas with staffed services on the east coast? If this is a rarity (i.e. these are 2 of say 5 in the entire United States), I would say, yeah let the articles stand as unique. If rest areas with actual staffed services are not that uncommon, I would say they should be merged. Dave (talk) 20:27, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Apparently, many of the UK's motorway service stations seem to have articles. In the US, most service areas do not appear to have articles, with Chesapeake House and Maryland House the main exceptions (see Category:Rest areas). As food for thought, Illinois Tollway oasis exists as a GA to cover the oasis rest areas on IL's tollways. The issue coming out here is how should we handle preseting service areas in the US. Should we go with the individual articles like Chesapeake House and Maryland House, a description in the service area section of a toll road article, or an overview in a separate article as with the IL case. Dough 48 72 00:54, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- From what I understand, these two rest areas are no different than those along the NY Thruway. Considering there's 27 of them in New York alone, they're hardly unique. – T M F 04:53, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Unless someone provides a rebuttal to TMF's answer to my question, I'm inclined to say the Maryland house should stay, but the Chesapeake house should go. I'm inclined to believe the 5 busiest rest areas along the I-95 corridor are no more notable than the 5 busiest truck stops along Interstate 80 (being as how in the western U.S. truck stops and small towns serve as the equivalent to staffed service areas in more concentrated parts of the world). With that said, the biggest truck stop along I-80 does have a unique article, Iowa 80, however it's the only individual truck stop to have an article that I can see. Someone above does have a valid point with the analogy to train depots. However, most train depots have architecture and history that adds to the notability equation. Furthermore, I'm not convinced all train depots should have articles, Elko (Amtrak station) and Green River (Amtrak station) are examples of ones with questionable notability, being little more than sidings with a bus shed and a sidewalk.
    - The impression I'm getting here is that Maryland House is worthy of an article because it is the "busiest" rest stop in the US. However, Chesapeake House, which is pretty much the same thing as Maryland House, should be merged simply because of the fact it is not the busiest rest stop in the US. I've been to Maryland House before and from my experience it does not look any more special than any other service plaza I've been to. I really don't see why the fact Maryland House is the busiest rest stop in the country can simply be mentioned in the I-95 in MD article. Dough 48 72 14:51, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

the beginning of this article

There is a summary of I-95's journey through Maryland, but it's written north-to-south. I thought your normal convention was to write about northbound for a north-south route.

Also, I-95 from Baltimore city to the I-295 split in Delaware used to be called Maryland Northeastern Expressway (in Maryland) and Delaware Turnpike (in Delaware). They BOTH are part of the John F. Kennedy Memorial Highway (which, as you note, got that name after JFK's assassination only 8 days after the dedication). Some articles need to be revised because John F. Kennedy Memorial Highway is not limited to Maryland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.20 (talk) 18:17, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge discussion 2013

The articles about the Chesapeake House and Maryland House service areas should be merged into the service areas section of this articles as they are lacking in information and individual service areas are generally not notable enough for their own articles. Service areas on other toll roads are covered in a section of the toll road article and I see no reason why these two service areas should have their own articles. The 2010 merge discussion resulted in no consensus, so I wanted to see if we could get more consensus here. Dough 48 72 03:06, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense. Sounds good to me. Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 03:04, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I don't understand your reasons for wanting to merge them, but doing so only leaves Illinois Tollway oasis in the Rest areas category. Granted the article isn't for an individual service area, but both the Maryland and Chesapeake Houses seem distinguished enough for separate articles. If you do decide to merge them, I'd recommend expanding the "Service areas" chapter some more. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 14:41, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, now that the Chesapeake House has reopened, that really makes sense for the articles to be merged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.210.39.82 (talk) 21:36, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Needless to say, I'm going to redirect them right now by putting some of the info from these articles to the Interstate 95 in Maryland#Service areas section.

Support merger — These individual service areas are not notable enough to have their own articles and can be detailed in a section of the main article without violating summary style. V C 18:14, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with DanTD's comment above and oppose the merger. There is no consensus to merge. Maryland House and Chesapeake House are two of the most visited rest areas in the United States, with over five million visitors every year. That is more than the population of 28 of the individual states! Though the articles could be further expanded, and should be, the argument for merger seems unaware of their historical and current significance.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:31, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just because these are among the busiest rest areas in the country does not justify the existence of separate articles. These rest areas have little to say special about them other than the fact they are busy. The information about them can easily be covered in the Service areas section of this article. Dough 48 72 00:46, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Widening project completed in Baltimore City

Where does any one think a blurb on this project should go? Its complete as far as I can tell, but I can't find a good source on that. Here was the press release from when it started. http://www.mdot.maryland.gov/News/Releases2017/2017_March_31_I95_Improvement_Project_to_Add_Capacity Famartin (talk) 01:19, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The press release about the project start says it's "a four-mile stretch of I-95 north of the Fort McHenry Tunnel" and mentions Boston Street as the beginning of the conversion. This area is in the "Within Baltimore" section, so this info could go there. Of course, the article also has an Improvements section; none of its subsections seem to include the portion under discussion, though, so perhaps a new subsection there would also work. A good source on the completion would be best, if writing that the work is completed. —ADavidB 01:57, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]