Talk:Interstate Highway System/Archive 9

This is an archive of past discussions about Interstate Highway System. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

McNichol book improperly cited

Whoever referenced the McNichol book (2006) did not cite page numbers. This is improper and those need to be provided in each and every instance where that book is made part of the footnotes. Carrite (talk) 22:10, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Agreed; the {{page needed}} template added and the previous citation format restored for consistency with the rest of the footnotes. (All of the footnotes used citation templates, so any additional ones inserted should as well.) Imzadi 1979 → 22:24, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Notes and References vs. Footnotes

How is it possible to argue that a new section ("Notes") with a single listing which itself includes a footnote to another supplemental section (called "References") is more elegant than the simple insertion of another footnote into a long list of the same? Incomprehensible. Carrite (talk) 22:12, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

A couple points. The previous method separates footnotes that are for references from those that are for explanation. It also allowed for the explanatory text to be cited to one of the footnotes already in the article without duplicating that citation in the footnote. The system is actually somewhat common in FA-Class highway articles for the US, see M-6 (Michigan highway) and U.S. Route 131 for two examples, or for other articles on highway systems, like Michigan State Trunkline Highway System. It's a valid style option, and as the article develops, additional explanatory footnotes can be added. Imzadi 1979 → 22:28, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Message to "Owner" Imzadi1979

How did you know I was only going to cite two pages of Schwantes? You left me zero time and edited over my style with no discussion here. I hope you are doing a better job factually with "your" Interstate Highway System page than the first couple paragraphs were before I fixed them. I have no patience for this kind of crap and am gone. WP:OWN Carrite (talk) 22:23, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Magnitude of the Interstate System

Out of curiosity I worked out a rough first estimate of the amount of the material in the Interstate System. Taking length as roughly 48,000 miles or 253,440,000 ft, the width of the roadway proper as 40 ft, and the thickness as 1 ft, I get a volume of 1.01376 x 10¹⁰ cubic feet of paving material. The original volume of the Great Pyramid at Giza was 91,636,272 cubic feet. The Interstate System therefore contains roughly 110 Great-Pyramids-worth of paving material. If someone wanted to work at it, they could probably come with a more-refined estimate to include the shoulders, bridges and overpasses, on/off ramps, et c. but this will suffice as a first guess. All this was laid down by (what?) a half-million workers using modern construction equipment in 35 years. It's estimated that 100,000 workers working 20 years built the Great Pyramid. So far as I know, no outer-space aliens showed up to help in either case. Virgil H. Soule (talk) 06:37, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Interesting factoid, get it published so we can use it in the article! Per WP:OR, we're not supposed use content that hasn't been published, and getting this article up to GA standards is on my get around to it list (and the article has come a long way over the past 6 months or so). Dave (talk) 17:34, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Poor picture quality

Why has the picture change been reverted? It is very much in need of change, in my opinion. 76.172.114.52 (talk) 22:35, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

While I'll admit that neither picture is going to fly through a FP nomination, the one you propose has the rear view mirror visible. If you want to put that up, at least crop that out. Dave (talk) 17:16, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

What Dave said. --Rs chen 7754 18:33, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Neither of these pictures seem to me rise to the level one would want to accompany the lead paragraph. Rather than arguing over these two pictures, why not consider (1) whether a picture (or two) should accompany the lead and (2) what sort of picture(s) would help illustrate and showcase the Interstate Highway System. Get some ideas on what would be the ideal picture (urban? rural? between exits? with overpass/underpass? with signs?). Once we have some idea of the characteristics of the ideal picture(s), go out and find pictures that meet as many of the characteristics as possible. Continuing to argue about these two pictures only delays efforts at finding a truly great pic. YBG (talk) 05:50, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

A featured picture would be preferred. The big deal killers with the Miami picture are 1- the rear view mirror, 2- a slight green tint to the picture (most likely from the windshield) and 3- the fact that the biggest object in the picture (one of the gantry signs) is half cropped out. Any pic in the lead where the focus is signage, should at least have all the sign covered in the picture. Of the pictures already on the article, IMO, the two best are the one of I-55 under construction and of the Eisenhower Memorial sign being dedicated. Of the pics I've seen so far, the most worth of a lead picture are: File:SeattleI5Skyline.jpg (is AFAIK the only currently featured picture to show a freeway, but the fact that the highway signs are barely visible may be a deal killer for some), other candidates may include File:I-80 Eastshore Fwy.jpg, File:Cedarpocketclouds.jpg, File:Glenwood Canyon I-70.JPG, File:FEMA - 7514 - Photograph by Andrea Booher taken on 06-15-2002 in Colorado.jpg. Dave (talk) 19:01, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

What we need is a simple, close-up view of what a "normal" section of Interstate looks like. This is going to have to be a rural segment, since urban miles are vastly dwarfed by rural. (We will want an urban picture too, though.) Probably the best that you could do would be a view from a rural overpass, since that would be easy to control the lighting, focus, etc. on. If a suitable stretch is not found with signs included, we could have a separate illustration of what the signs look like (maybe even a screenshot of the sample sign from the MUTCD). —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 22:56, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I can respect that reasoning. Given that criteria, here's some photos that may work (doing a quick scan of commons, and to be fair, two are mine, selfish motivation alert) File:I80Donnersummit.JPG File:Flickr - Nicholas T - Choices.jpg (Note, windshield tint issues, but not bad) File:I80downtownreno.jpg, this needs to be cropped, but I know the bridge where this was taken and could try to get signage in the picture. File:Kansas City Night 08MAR07 097.jpg. Dave (talk) 18:49, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

The Donner Summit image is taken from far too high to serve as a good image, in my opinion. The Reno image is a bit more what I had in mind, but I'd prefer something rural, such that we can see a good example of a rural interstate, and not have the clutter of other bridges and buildings. I have always liked that Kansas City image (it was my desktop for a while), and wouldn't mind having it in the article, but some folks might object to a night shot. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 17:14, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Time zones

It would be a great idea if the time boundaries were indicated on all the interstate routes, e.g. Entering _______ Time Zone. That would be useful for motorists and others. Jay (talk) 07:12, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I have very mixed opinions about this idea. I've noted in the prose RD of some articles I've written where the highway crosses a time zone boundary. (I specialize in Michigan, and the UP of Michigan has four counties in Central and 11 in Eastern.) However, I wouldn't advocate for including this in the junction or exit list of articles. We typically don't call out county boundaries explicitly in those tables, and this would be just a variation of that. The tension at work is to keep the articles encyclopedic without straying too far into "travel guide" territory. Imzadi 1979 → 02:52, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I would probably note it in my articles if Oklahoma had any time zone boundaries. This question should be directed to WikiProject U.S. Roads or the talk page for road junction lists though. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 06:39, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I-95 in Maryland

I find:

"Others have had their construction bonds paid off and they have become toll-free, such as in Connecticut (I‑95), Maryland (I‑95), Virginia (I‑95), and Kentucky (I‑65)."

I know about the Connecticut and Kentucky Turnpikes, and also about the Richmond-Petersburg Turnpike in Virginia. But I don't understand the inclusion of Maryland (I-95) in what I just quoted. I-95 in Maryland is tolled in both directions at the Fort McHenry Tunnel in Baltimore, and there is a 1-way toll northbound at the Susquehanna River (between the Baltimore Harbor Tunnel thruway and the Delaware state line, along what was originally called the Northeastern Expressway), and there is a toll in each direction just across the Delaware state line.

The original Northeastern Expressway in Maryland was tolled from White Marsh Boulevard (MD 43) to the Delaware border. But ramp tolls on it (and also on the Delaware Turnpike) have since been removed, leaving only the 2 toll barriers I mentioned (1 in Maryland, 1 in Delaware) -- not counting Fort McHenry Tunnel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.20 (talk) 18:45, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

On thing this article suffers from is trivia cruft, especially in the mile markers, speed limits and statistics sections (although the statistics section has been relatively stable since it was pruned). Perhaps this merits a larger discussion about pruning these sections to get rid of the cruft? Dave (talk) 19:11, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Each list of examples does not need to be exhaustive, just illustrative. If an example doesn't illustrate the concept well enough. remove it. Imzadi 1979 → 22:12, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

What's with the non-unique highway names (I-495)?

I'm wondering if someone can please explain why there are so many I-495's? I know that some of the highways are discontinuous like I-95 and still use the same name, but the situation with I-495 seems to make little sense. Is I-495 part of the "Dwight D. Eisenhower Interstate Highway System" and so are all "I-495"'s technically the same highway? Or are some of the highway names that begin with an "I" state-specific roads? I think the article and the disambiguation page for "I-495" need to explain this, and also I think there should be an exhaustive list of all the "I" highways including which ones have duplicate names and how those duplicates are related to each other. If anyone has more information on the duplicate names including for "I-495", please comment here and make sure to add it to these articles. Thanks. --Wykypydya (talk) 23:06, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

"Is I-495 part of the 'Dwight D. Eisenhower Interstate Highway System' and so are all 'I-495's technically the same highway?"—Yes, to the first, and no, to the second. Numbers for the auxiliary Interstates may repeat from state to state so long as they are unique. From this article: "Due to the large number of these routes, auxiliary route numbers may be repeated in different states along the mainline.^[37]"

"I think there should be an exhaustive list of all the 'I' highways including which ones have duplicate names and how those duplicates are related to each other." See List of Interstate Highways and List of auxiliary Interstate Highways which list the primary and auxiliary highways, respectively.

Imzadi 1979 → 23:28, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for clarifying. I missed that originally. --Wykypydya (talk) 21:27, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

As an additional clarification, all Interstate highways are owned and maintained by the states. The states simply receive maintenance funding earmarked for Interstate highways (but not all, there are "chargeable" and "non-chargeable" Interstates, for reasons that probably aren't all that important to the layman), and the system is coordinated by AASHTO (which mostly handles the numbering) and FHWA (which ensures that the highways meet standards). —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 21:38, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Shortest Two-Digit Interstate

The shortest two-digit interstate is no longer I-73. Even the Wikipedia article on I-73 (Interstate_73) shows it's length to now be 82.4 miles. This is far longer than I-97, which is only 17.62 miles. I don't think that the reference for this entry (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/reports/routefinder/#s11) has been updated to reflect the newest construction/lengthening of I-73 and is therefore no longer accurate.

There are several references that list I-97 as the current shortest two-digit interstate, including the Wikipedia article on I-97:

The author should update the page to reflect this fact.

Voyager62 (talk) 17:30, 12 November 2014 (UTC)Voyager62

@Voyager62: This is a very good suggestion. But there is no 'author' of the page -- in fact you are every bit as much an author as those of us who have already had a hand in editing this page. You are welcome to be bold and edit it yourself? Those of us who watch this page will be glad to provide you with a safety net -- just make sure to use reliable sources; some of those you've listed may not qualify. YBG (talk) 07:48, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Depending on how you classify Interstate 69W (is it separate from Interstate 69 in Texas and is it a two-digit interstate despite the suffix), it might be the shortest, as it is currently only 1.4 miles, although that will probably change. (Interstate 69C is also a short one at 13.5 miles.) —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 09:55, 14 November 2014 (UTC)