Talk:Interstate Highway System/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Shortest segment

The distinction of "not crossing State boundary" does not make sense to me:

• Shortest segment not crossing a State boundary: 0.11 mi (0.18 km): I-95 in the District of Columbia, where it crosses the Potomac River on the Woodrow Wilson Bridge.[53]

Although DC is not a state, I would claim the particular I95-segment runs from the VA to the MD state boundary.

Dutch-Bostonian (talk) 15:46, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I thought quite a while about how to word this particular one -- how to be brief and yet still accurate. Before my edit, it read 'The shortest Interstate route segment within a state (or federal district)', which seemed a bit wordy. As the boundaries of DC with its neighbors are in fact the state boundaries of Maryland and Virginia, I thought the present wording was both accurate and concise. What about something like this:

• Shortest segment not crossing a State boundary: 0.11 mi (0.18 km): I-95 on the Woodrow Wilson Bridge across the Potomac River where it briefly briefly crosses the southernmost tip of the District of Columbia between its borders with Maryland and Virginia.

Or maybe someone else has a better way to express it concisely and accurately. Edit boldly! YBG (talk) 06:31, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

See my edit in the article. Dutch-Bostonian (talk) 22:00, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

More about extremes

Because N-S routes are generally much shorter than E-W ones and major routes than not-divisible-by-5 ones, the information about I-10 and I-81 added by 76.189.169.77^{T / C} but undone by MPD ^{T / C} seems noteworthy to me. I'm willing to be convinced otherwise, but I'm inclined to restore it. But I am happy with the removal of the bit about grandfather clauses. YBG (talk) 06:24, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

The "not divisible by 5" qualification seems rather trivial to include. There are several major non-divisible-by-5 interstates which are quite a bit longer than others that are. I-30 and I-45 are rather shorter than, say, I-94, I-81, I-59, the eastern I-76, etc. etc. The only major distiction should be between the 2-d interstates and the daughter 3-d interstates. The whole "divisible by 5" thing is a bit too trivial. Ostebsibly, the "divisible by 5" ones are the longest, but there are too many exception in either direction to make it a big deal. Even if this stuff is true, its probably way to trivial to bother noting. --Jayron32 06:52, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Would you agree that the distinction between N-S and E-W is significant to merit separate categories? YBG (talk) 06:56, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Possibly. I-95 and I-90 as the longest NS and EW respectively probably bear mentioning, and possibly I-476 as the longest spur, but once we get to "longest not divisible by 5" or "most cars traveled on the third tuesday in may" or other such random trivialities, it can get to be a bit much. --Jayron32 07:01, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm willing to concede thst longest not-divisible-by-5 may not be very notable ... they seem to be in the denser areas where there aren't as many numbers available. But might shortest-not-divisible-by-5 be a bit more significant, as the assignment x0 or x5 to a short route seems a bit more of a deviation from the plan to assign those numbers to coast-to-coast or border-to-border routes. YBG (talk) 07:15, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Exit numbers = mile markers

I had thought that changing exit numbers to match mile markers was a US national (federal) standard or guideline. I cannot find this. Can anyone help? Student7 (talk) 18:11, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Distance-based numbering became mandatory in the 2009 MUTCD (Section 2E.31, page 32). Originally, I heard that all states have to comply with the change by 2020; however, the list of compliance dates on page 41 of the Intro and TOC PDF makes no mention of it. – TMF 19:56, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Divided Highways

Just in case anyone is interested, the interstate system which are basically "divided highways" links to british variation of the term on wikipedia. The term "divided highways" links to "dual carriageways" on wikipedia. The term carriageway is not used by the majority of the international community. The term carriageway is very british centric, just like the term divided highway is very north american centric. So I have request a move of "carriageway" to "roadway" which is a neutral commonly used term throughout the world. Just thought some of you maybe interested in the discussion at Talk:Dual carriageway. UrbanNerd (talk) 23:07, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

References

The various references need to be cleaned up. I've started the first round, by templating them all and harmonizing formats as best as possible. Now all of the authors listed should be in Last, First orders, and all of the dates should be in US standard date format (Month DD, YYYY). Now, all of the missing information should be added. There are several links in there that are probably dead from link rot that should be fixed, several missing accessdates, publication dates, publisher names and author names. There are 60 current references, so it's possible that I might have missed one or two fixes in my initial pass, but we should take them all and get them cleaned up. For dead links, we either need to find replacement URLs, or find out if the pages were archived at archive.org in the Wayback Machine. If they're archived, then we can add the |archivedurl= |archivedate= parameters with the information to resurrect any dead links. As a goal, anything with an external link should have an accessdate added, even if that date is when the link was checked to make sure it still works. Imzadi 1979 → 03:18, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Second minor thought, but while we're scrubbing the references formats, any that are from "roadgeek" sites, which are all technically self-published sources should be replaced with hihger-quality sources, online or in print. That will go a long way towards getting this article fixed up for any future GAN or FAC. Imzadi 1979 → 03:22, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Split between federal and state

There was originally a split of funds between federal and state for construction. 90% federal, 10% state. This was deleted probably for lacking citation, also because it seemed to suggest that this was a current division of funding for maintenance, which it isn't. Anyway, now missing. Student7 (talk) 19:38, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Extremes section

Should the extreme section be taken to a new article? It seems a bit unwieldly. Also, some do not have citations at all. IR393DEME (talk) 01:59, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, certainly references should be added where missing. I don't think this information deserves its own article, however. Items that are WP:TRIVIA or can't be verified should be deleted. Also, the use of bolding and the format ought to be rethought. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:21, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Total length of China's expressways have exceeded the Interstate

• 74,222 km by the end of 2010: http://www.cngaosu.com/a/2011/0105/76108.html
• 220 km Shaogan expressway opened on January 1, 2011: [1]
• 71.3 km Jingxin expressway Tumu–Jiaoniwan section opened on January 7: [2]
• 57.378 km Hubei Sanxia Fanba expressway opened on January 12: [3]
• 70 km Hubei Luwu expressway opened on January 13: [4]
• 12 km Hainan Lingao Jinpai Xigang expressway opened on January 17: [5]
• 81.6 km Tianjin Binbao expressway Tianjin section opened on January 25: [6]
• 215.25 km Guangdong Class-I highway upgrade to expressway project Qinglian expressway opened on January 25: [7]
• 11.5 km Guangdong Baijin Phase III opened on January 26: [8]
• 177 km Guangxi Longlin–Baise expressway opened on January 27: [9]
• 87.26 km Quzhou Huangqunan expressway opened on January 28: [10]
• 39 km Yunnan Anjin expressway opened on February 1: [11]
• 129 km Hubei Mawu expressway opened on February 13: [12]
• 116.26 km Lianhuo expressway Tongguan section opened on February 14: [13]

(above) Total: 75510 km

• 28.7 km Guizhou Majia expressway opened on February 28: [14]
• 59 km Hangrui expressway Chongyang section opened on March 7: [15]
• 32.893 km Wubai expressway opened on March 15: [16]

(as of March 20) Total: 75630 km Python eggs (talk) 06:57, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

This is misleading. The National Highway system is 160,000 miles. The interstate system is just a subset of it. Senior Trend (talk) 01:10, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

This article is about the Interstate; so the statement in the first paragraph “making it both the largest highway system in the world and the largest public works project” is not true. Python eggs (talk) 17:59, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Plus, expressways are no where near 160,000 miles in the U.S. Highway is a superset of expressway, which is a superset of the Interstate. I agree it is unfair to compare all Chinese expressways to the Interstate, but expressways is not highway. Python eggs (talk) 18:02, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

That's true. Maybe putting the NHS as the largest public works project and largest highway system is more accurate. Senior Trend (talk) 01:46, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Re: First US state to complete main line of interstate highway

Please have a look at the construction subset paragraph of this article. Oregon completed its section of Interstate 5, the north-south mainline, in October 1966 with the opening of the Marquam Bridge over the Willamette River in Portland. Governor Mark O. Hatfield presided over the ribbon cutting ceremony. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.246.49.64 (talk) 17:31, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

However, Oregon has 3 mainline interstate highways, when were they all completed? I'm not that familiar with Oregon, but most states in the west did not have a reasonable complete system until the mid 1970s. Dave (talk) 15:56, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

America's Highways Reference

It may be of interest to the maintainers of this page to know that I recently posted a PDF copy of the 1977 Federal Highway Administration book "America's Highways 1776-1976" at the Internet Archive. This is a primary source used by most of the historical accounts of the US highway system. --BenFranske (talk) 06:51, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Speed limit on interstate 10

A statute effective June 17, 2011, authorizes 85-mph speed limits in Texas, although the new law requires traffic and engineering studies before the higher limit takes effect. This also gets rid of the 65MPH night limit in Texas as well.DEWY CHEATEM AND HOWE (talk) 09:32, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Article cleanup

The Extremes section has been a crap magnet for some time in this article. What should we do with this? If we keep it what should stay and what should go? Here are my thoughts:

• The heaviest and lightest traveled do merit mention
• The elevation extremes is trivia, but probably worth mentioning
• The lengths section desperately needs pruned. The longest interstate and the longest NS- interstate maybe keep but the rest is roadcruft trivia, and not helpful to a general audience.
• The width section is roadcruft trivia (not to mention unsourced and most likely incorrect, I'm fairly certain I-17 in Arizona should be in that list somewhere).
• The states section should go, the only one I might consider worthy of keeping is "Most states served by an Interstate:" the rest is fancruft.

Any thoughts/objections? Dave (talk) 19:09, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

My first thought is to look to see what RSs do in similar situations. Does AASHTO or FHWA have a similar list, and if so, what is on it? Since FHWA's website text would be in the public domain, we could just copy it verbatim with attribution and call it a day. Imzadi 1979 → 20:29, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Most of the items that are worth keeping are sourced to a "fun facts about the interstate highway system" page on fwha.gov, so this is, in essence, what would remain if we cleaned this up. Dave (talk) 20:59, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• AASHTO's list [17]
• FHWA's list [18]

These lists are about 75% the same and one was clearly derived from the other. Dave (talk) 21:19, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, nobody objected so I'll fire up the chainsaw. Dave (talk) 16:07, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I stayed out of the discussion because I recognize that I am an admitted trivia fan. But I must say that the result is much better than I had feared. I do think that it would be good to restore Least Traveled and Lowest (under water). The sources may not be the best, but the statistics are certainly noteworthy. YBG (talk) 03:44, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely agreed, It did pain me to delete those two. However, one was completely unsourced, and the other was sourced, but not to a page that would pass muster at any venue that thoroughly reviews articles. So I error-ed on the side of caution. Dave (talk) 17:43, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Further cleanup

Ok, I started going through some of the citations for a few sections. That pretty much eliminated most of the SPSs that were in use. (There's one to roadfan.com, but that's a verbatim copy of a RS that should be reformatted to clarify that fact. There's also a citation for "paper Interstates", but that specific fact could be reworked and the citation pulled.)

I think this article could easily be nominated at WP:GAN with some work but some comments are in order.

• We probably need some kind of section on the cultural impact of the system. Plenty should have been written for the 50th anniversary a few years ago, so if we could pull together a paragraph or two on it. Also germane would be the freeway revolts, but only a summary since we have a full article on that topic. I have a copy of [19] that's listed in the further reading, but some of the other books might have commentary that's appropriate as well.
• We need to continue to clean up the citations to make them consistent, and combine items that are duplicates.
• There are a few items that need citations. Initially we should concentrate on what the GA criteria require, but keep an eye on the level required by the FA criteria.
• Someone should look through to see if we need to update information in the history and financing sections.
• We should try to use the various books and newspaper resources as much as possible; using AASHTO/FHWA and the MUTCD is fine but ideally we should be able to minimize that.
• I think some of the "see also" stuff could be trimmed out. Thoughts?

Imzadi 1979 → 13:58, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I think the history section should be expanded to include more of the key dates for construction milestones. This has been on my get around to it list for some time. Those would be:

• 1986 - Completion of the final segment of I-80 (5 mile piece in western Salt Lake City) making the interstate highway system connected from coast to coast. (I have a source for this)
• 1990 - Completion of the final segment of the 2nd transcontinental interstate (a 2 mile piece of I-10 through Phoenix, Arizona that includes the famous Papago Freeway Tunnel. I do not have a source for this and am only 90% sure that was the final piece of I-10 to be complete.
• 1991 - Completion of the 3rd and final true transcontinental interstate, the freeway bypass of Wallace, Idaho.

I'm sure there are a few others. As for the "almost" transcontinental interstates: The final segment of I-70 was complete in 1992, but that's already in the article. I don't know about I-40. Dave (talk) 17:49, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll take the action item to expand the construction section, let me squeeze it in with life's other priorities. =-) Something else that needs to be addressed is two sections: "Mile Markers and Exit Numbers" and the intro to "Signage" are essentially redundant. Which should be merged with which? Dave (talk) 18:35, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd merge ===Mile Markers and Exit Numbers=== into ==Signage==, and them move ==Financing== further down, either after ==Signage== or after ==Statistics==. ==Numbering System== and ==Signage== seem to be somewhat related, certainly more so than either is related to ==Financing==. YBG (talk) 06:26, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I've updated the citation formats for the first 35 or so footnotes. I have some plans this evening, so I'll try to get back to this for the remainder of the article later. I'm trying to make sure that every citation has complete information, working links, and a consistent format. Imzadi 1979 → 21:31, 10 March 2012 (UTC)